[2004] KEHC 893 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants failed to comply with a consent order requiring them to file a defence within 15 days. No valid defence was on record, as the purported defence filed years later was rejected for being out of time. The court held that the suit was undefended and that the plaintiffs were entitled...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 893 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mrs Narmadi Popatlal; Plaintiff: Verindra Raithatha; Plaintiff: Mehendra Raithatha; Defendant: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting; Defendant: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2697 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Judgment in Default of Defence
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for plaintiffs as prayed in amended plaint; costs to plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Default Judgment, Failure to File Defence, Consent Orders, Setting Aside Judgment
- 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
Mrs Narmadi Popatlal
Plaintiff
Verindra Raithatha
Plaintiff
Mehendra Raithatha
Plaintiff
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Defendant
The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Judgment in Default of Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs due to the defendants' failure to file a defence as ordered by the court.
- 2 Whether the late defence filed by the defendants should be accepted or rejected.
- 3 Whether the previous consent order setting aside judgment and granting leave to defend was complied with.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants failed to comply with a consent order requiring them to file a defence within 15 days. No valid defence was on record, as the purported defence filed years later was rejected for being out of time. The court held that the suit was undefended and that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as prayed in the amended plaint. The absence of grounds of opposition or a replying affidavit further supported the plaintiffs' application. The court therefore allowed the application and entered judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs to be paid by the defendants.
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for plaintiffs as prayed in amended plaint; costs to plaintiffs
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of Kshs.6,388,613.15 as prayed in the amended plaint dated 20th May 1999.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiffs, to be paid by the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 2697 OF 1998
MRS NARMADI POPATLAL
VERINDRA RAITHATHA
MEHENDRA RAITHATHA……………………………………………. PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION &
BROADCASTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………..DEFENDANTS
RULING
This ruling relates to an application filed way back in the year 2000, being a Chamber Summons dated 15th August 2000, seeking orders of this Court to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs in the sum of Kshs.6,388,613. 15 the Defendant having failed to file a Defence to the amended Plaint filed herein on 24th May 1999.
It is not quite clear why the said Chamber Summons has remained pending for such a long time but the record does show that most of the times when the same came up for hearing the Defendant did not appear to defend the same. The record also shows that 26th October 2000 and 17th November 2000 the parties did attend Court and the Defendant admitted that some rent was due but not all that is claimed herein. On 26th October 2000, the parties recorded a consent to the effect that the Defendant files a defence within 15 days the date of that order and in it admit whatever they needed to admit. It is not disputed that the Defendant did not comply with the said consent order but has as recently as 21st October 2004 attempted to file a defence which this Court rejected. It is not clear also why on 2nd March 2001 previous Counsel for the applicant told the Court that this application had been dealt with. My perusal of the file has disclosed no order as would have disposed of this application. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants are requesting for judgment. As confirmed by the record previous judgment entered herein was set aside by consent when the parties agreed that a defence could be filed within 15 days.
No grounds of opposition or Replying Affidavit was filed. During the hearing inter partes, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the issue of rent was not in dispute and only sought to object to this application on the ground that a defence had been filed on 21st October, 2004, which, in the Counsel’s opinion meant that the application had been overtaken by events. The said defence having been rejected by this Court, the same having been filed long after the period allowed for the same it remains that the suit is not defended. The defendant having not filed a defence as required, I do allow the application and enter judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed in the amended Plaint dated 20th May 1999. Costs of this application shall be paid by the Defendant.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 10 th day of December 2004.
M.G. Mugo
Ag. Judge
In the presence of
Ms Othieno present for the Applicants
N/A for M. Kimani Chief Litigation Counsel for Attorney General
N/A for A.G.N. Kamau & Company Advocates for the Respondents