[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should extend the validity of summons issued against the 3rd defendant for a further twelve months.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
COMMERCIAL CIVIL CASE 22 OF 2005
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LTD………………..……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. MVITA BEER & GENERAL DISTRIBUTIONS LTD
2. PETER MBOGORI
3. FRANCO MUREITHI
4. LEMMY K. MBOGORI……………………………….DEFENDANTS
RULING
This is an application by the plaintiff for two main orders of the court namely:
(1)That the Summons issued herein on 8th September 2005 against the 3rd defendant by the court be validated for a further period of twelve (12) months from the date of such validation.
(2)That the Summons issued by the court be served upon the 3rd defendant by way of advertisement in one daily newspaper of national circulation.
The application, which is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff’s advocate, is based on the ground that all efforts made to serve the said summons were not fruitful as the plaintiff does not know the current physical whereabouts of the 3rd defendant.
The application is expressed to be brought under the provisions of Order V Rules 1 and 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act is also unnecessarily invoked.
Order V Rule 1 (1), (2), (5) and (7) are in the following terms:-
“1 (1). A Summons (other than a concurrent summons) shall
be valid in the first instance for twelve months
beginning with the date of its issue and a concurrent summons shall be valid in the first instance for the period of validity of the original summons which is unexpired at the date of issue of the current summons.
(2). Where a summons has not been served on a defendant the court may extend the validity of the summons from time to time if satisfied it is just to do so.
(5). Application for an order under sub-rule 2 shall be made by filing an affidavit setting out the attempts made at service and their result and the order may be made without the advocate or plaintiff in person being heard.
(7). Where no application has been made under sub-rule (2) the court may without notice dismiss the suit at the expiry of twenty four months from the issue of the original summons.”
So, a summons is valid in the first instance for twelve months from the date of issue. The validity of such summons may however, be extended on application if the applicant satisfies the court that it is just to do so and where no application is made to validate the summons for twenty four months, the court of its own motion may dismiss the suit. The court therefore has discretion to extend the validity of the original summons and also to dismiss the suit where no application to extend the validity is made for twenty four months, the main concern of the court being to do justice to the parties.
This suit was filed on 5th September 2005 and summons were issued on 8th September 1995. The process server made attempts at service in September 2005 or at least before 11th November 2005 without success. It is now nearly four years since the plaintiff’s attempt to serve the 3rd defendant failed to bear fruit. The plaintiff has not explained why it could not move the court earlier. It has all along been aware that the 3rd defendant has not been served because he could not be traced. Yet it did nothing. The power of the court to extend the validity of summons under Order V Rule 1 (2) is exercisable if it is just to do so. The applicant had to place material before the court showing sufficient reason for not having moved the court for nearly four years. In the premises, I do not find it just to extend the validity of the summons issued almost four years ago.
In the premises, the plaintiff’s application dated 3rd July 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:-
Mr. Mwakisha holding brief for Mr. Mogaka for the Plaintiff.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
6TH OCTOBER 2009