[2005] KEHC 598 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 598 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's failure to attend court was due to the hearing notice being served on a former advocate who was deceased and thus unable to inform the applicant. The applicant only became aware of the judgment after enforcement proceedings commenced. The court held that its discretion to set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 598 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nationwide Finance Company Ltd; Defendant: Gersen Micheni Musa; Defendant: Mariba Omungatia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 3868 of 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
ex parte judgment set aside; costs to plaintiff
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Court Discretion, Service of Process, Delay in Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Court Discretion Service of Process Delay in Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Nationwide Finance Company Ltd

Plaintiff

Gersen Micheni Musa

Defendant

Mariba Omungatia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside due to non-attendance caused by service on a deceased advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided a sufficient excuse for failing to attend court.
  3. 3 Whether there is inordinate delay in bringing the application to set aside judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's failure to attend court was due to the hearing notice being served on a former advocate who was deceased and thus unable to inform the applicant. The applicant only became aware of the judgment after enforcement proceedings commenced. The court held that its discretion to set aside ex parte judgment should be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from excusable mistake or error. There was no evidence of deliberate evasion or intent to obstruct justice by the applicant. Accordingly, the ex parte judgment was set aside to prevent injustice, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

ex parte judgment set aside; costs to plaintiff

Orders

  • The ex parte judgment entered on 11th February 1994 in favour of the plaintiff is set aside.
  • The defendant will pay the plaintiff costs of this application, to be agreed or taxed by the Deputy Registrar.