[2019] KEELC 1481 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1481 (KLR)

The court found that the application for substituted service was merited as personal service on the 1st defendant was not possible and there was no opposition to the application. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to allow substituted service by postage to the 1st defendant's last...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1481 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mugere Kamotho; Defendant: James Muchiri Ndegwa; Defendant: David Muthengi; Defendant: John Nyaga; Defendant: M’Imwitha M’Rinthira; Defendant: Jackson Makunyi Kururu; Defendant: M’Gweta Murua; Defendant: Njeru Ngoroi; Defendant: Alexander Munene Mati; Defendant: Patrick Mutugi Mati; Defendant: John Gitonga Mati; Defendant: Catherine Kagendo Muturia; Defendant: M’Nandi Maikithe
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 05 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substituted Service
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Service of Process, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substituted Service Service of Process Land Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugere Kamotho

Plaintiff

James Muchiri Ndegwa

Defendant

David Muthengi

Defendant

John Nyaga

Defendant

M’Imwitha M’Rinthira

Defendant

Jackson Makunyi Kururu

Defendant

M’Gweta Murua

Defendant

Njeru Ngoroi

Defendant

Alexander Munene Mati

Defendant

Patrick Mutugi Mati

Defendant

John Gitonga Mati

Defendant

Catherine Kagendo Muturia

Defendant

M’Nandi Maikithe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substituted Service

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant leave for substituted service by postage to the 1st defendant's last known address.
  2. 2 Whether the application for substituted service is merited in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for substituted service was merited as personal service on the 1st defendant was not possible and there was no opposition to the application. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to allow substituted service by postage to the 1st defendant's last known postal address, ensuring that the proceedings could move forward without undue delay. The court further directed that such service be effected within 45 days and ordered that costs be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted for substituted service of the Notice of Motion Application dated 29th July, 2019 upon the 1st defendant by postage to his last known postal address.
  • The plaintiff is directed to effect substituted service within 45 days of the ruling date.