[2024] KECPT 1696 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 1696 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that since judgment had already been entered against the Applicant and no application to set aside the judgment was made, there was no legal basis to grant leave to file a response out of time. The Applicant's reason for delay—ongoing settlement negotiations—did not constitute sufficient cause,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 1696 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Ngao Yetu Sacco Limited; Respondent: Judith Mwendwa Gitonga
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 224 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Response Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs; default judgment upheld
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Leave to File Out of Time, Warrants of Arrest, Out of Court Settlement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Default Judgment Leave to File Out of Time Warrants of Arrest Out of Court Settlement

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngao Yetu Sacco Limited

Claimant

Judith Mwendwa Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Response Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant has satisfied the Tribunal to grant leave to file a response to the claim out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that since judgment had already been entered against the Applicant and no application to set aside the judgment was made, there was no legal basis to grant leave to file a response out of time. The Applicant's reason for delay—ongoing settlement negotiations—did not constitute sufficient cause, especially as she was aware of the proceedings and the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules require a party seeking to respond after judgment to first seek to set aside the judgment, which was not done in this case. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs, and the default judgment was upheld.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs; default judgment upheld

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion Application dated 20th May 2024 is dismissed with costs.
  • The default judgment of 5th October 2021 is upheld.