[2009] KEHC 1076 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1076 (KLR)

The court held that the power to extend the validity of summons is discretionary and must be exercised only if it is just to do so. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient explanation for the nearly four-year delay in seeking extension after unsuccessful service attempts. The court found no justification for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1076 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: National Bank of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Mvita Beer & General Distributions Ltd; Defendant: Peter Mbogori; Defendant: Franco Mureithi; Defendant: Lemmy K. Mbogori
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Civil Case 22 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Validity of Summons and for Substituted Service
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Summons, Substituted Service, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Summons Substituted Service Service of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bank of Kenya Ltd

Plaintiff

Mvita Beer & General Distributions Ltd

Defendant

Peter Mbogori

Defendant

Franco Mureithi

Defendant

Lemmy K. Mbogori

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Validity of Summons and for Substituted Service

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend the validity of summons issued against the 3rd defendant for a further twelve months.
  2. 2 Whether the court should allow service of summons on the 3rd defendant by advertisement in a daily newspaper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the power to extend the validity of summons is discretionary and must be exercised only if it is just to do so. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient explanation for the nearly four-year delay in seeking extension after unsuccessful service attempts. The court found no justification for the prolonged inaction, and thus, it was not just to extend the validity of the summons. Consequently, the application for extension and substituted service was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application dated 3rd July 2009 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.