[2017] KEELC 1795 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st Defendant had notice of the suit since its inception in 2010 and had actively participated in the proceedings, including appointing an advocate and filing affidavits. The court held that the issue of service of summons had already been determined in a previous application, and the 1st...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1795 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Martha Wambui Kinyua; Defendant: Beatrice Wanjiru Kambo; Defendant: Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 299 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- 1st Defendant's application dismissed; Plaintiff's application allowed.
- Judges
- AK Bor
- Legal Topics
- Service of Summons, Substituted Service, Abatement of Suit, Participation in Proceedings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Martha Wambui Kinyua
Plaintiff
Beatrice Wanjiru Kambo
Defendant
Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit against the 1st Defendant has abated.
- 2 Whether the court should re-issue summons to the 1st Defendant and allow service by substituted means.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st Defendant had notice of the suit since its inception in 2010 and had actively participated in the proceedings, including appointing an advocate and filing affidavits. The court held that the issue of service of summons had already been determined in a previous application, and the 1st Defendant had not appealed that decision. The court further held that the 1st Defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice suffered due to the alleged non-service of summons. Consequently, the court dismissed the 1st Defendant's application seeking a finding of abatement and allowed the Plaintiff's application for re-issuance and substituted service of summons.
Court Disposition
1st Defendant's application dismissed; Plaintiff's application allowed.
Orders
- The 1st Defendant's application dated 9/2/2017 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff's application dated 2/3/2017 is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
E.L.C. CASE NO. 299 OF 2010
MARTHA WAMBUI KINYUA.....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BEATRICE WANJIRU KAMBO......1ST DEFENDANT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES NATIONAL SOCIAL
SECURITY FUND.............................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This ruling relates to two applications. The 1st Defendant filed the first application dated 9/2/2017 seeking to have the court make a finding that the suit against her has abated. The Plaintiff filed the second application dated 2/3/2017 in which she seeks to have the court issue fresh summons to the 1st Defendant and that the 1st Defendant be served by way of substituted service.
The court notes that the 1st Defendant previously sought to have the plaint struck out through the application dated 29/9/2014. One of the grounds for that application was that the 1st Defendant had never been served with summons to enter appearance. The court considered that application. Lady Justice Gacheru in her ruling delivered on 26/6/2016 dismissed that application. Instead of appealing against that decision, the 1st Defendant filed the application dated 9/2/2017. The court finds that the 1st Defendant application has already been determined and this court cannot sit on appeal of the decision made by Gacheru J. The application dated 9/2/2017 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Turning to the second application, the court notes that the 2nd Defendant filed its defence on 10/9/2014. In her replying affidavit filed in court on 27/3/2017, the Plaintiff depones that attempts to serve the 1st Defendant Advocates with summons to enter appearance were made but the 1st Defendant’s advocate declined to accept service. The court notes that the plaint has been amended severally. At one point the amendment was necessitated by the need to correct the 1st Defendant’s names after the 1st Defendant filed her replying affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiffs application for injunction.
The 2nd Defendant in its defence filed on 10/9/2014 admits at paragraph 8 that it allocated the Suit Property to the Plaintiff and has never allocated it to any other person.
The issue for determination is whether the court ought to re-issue the summons to enter appearance to the 1st Defendant and grant leave for the 1st Defendant to be served by substituted means. The court has looked at the case of Tropical Foods International and Another V Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank & Another, HCC No. 119 of 2014, Commercial and Amiralty Division in which Justice Tuiyott dealt with the issue of summons. The Judge observed that an application to extend the validity of summons can be made even after the expiry of the original summons. The Judge observed that the purpose of issuing summons to enter appearance is for the Defendant to appear within the time specified since summons give notice to the Defendant of the existence of a suit against them. The court observed that if the Defendant gets notice of the suit by other means other than the summons to enter appearance and participates in subsequent proceedings, then the Defendant should not complain about the non-service of summons unless he can demonstrate that the non-service caused him prejudice.
The court notes that the 1st Defendant has actively participated in these proceedings. The 1st Defendant appointed her advocate on 29/6/2010. She states in her replying affidavit sworn on 13/7/2010 as follows:
“That I have seen the suit filed herein as well as the application under certificate of urgency.”
The court finds that the 1st Defendant has had notice of the existence of this suit against her from 2010 when it was filed. The 1st Defendant has not shown what prejudice she will suffer by the non-service of the summons on her.
The court allows the application dated 2/3/2017. Summons will be issued and will be served upon the 1st Defendant by substituted means within 30 days of the date of this ruling. The 1st Defendant will pay the costs of this application to the Plaintiff.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of September 2017.
K. BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Mwangi for the Plaintiff
Ms. Wangui for the Defendant
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistany