[2025] KEHC 5542 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5542 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in stating that the appellant had not filed a defence, when in fact a defence was on record. The refusal to grant a second adjournment, in the absence of evidence of deliberate delay or obstruction of justice, denied the appellant the right to be heard on a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5542 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Margaret Wambui Ngugi; Respondent: Pamela Miheso
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 177 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Judges
SC Chirchir
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Judicial Discretion, Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Contract Debt Recovery
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Right to Be Heard Judicial Discretion Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Contract Debt Recovery

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Wambui Ngugi

Appellant

Pamela Miheso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied the right to be heard in the lower court proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved her claim for the outstanding debt on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in stating that the appellant had not filed a defence, when in fact a defence was on record. The refusal to grant a second adjournment, in the absence of evidence of deliberate delay or obstruction of justice, denied the appellant the right to be heard on a triable issue—namely, the amount actually owed. The court held that the right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of fair trial and should have been prioritized over expeditious disposal, especially since the delay was not inordinate and the defence raised a substantive issue. The interests of justice required that the appellant be allowed to present her case, with the respondent...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The judgment of the trial court delivered on 19th October 2023 and all consequential orders or proceedings arising therefrom are set aside.
  • The case is to be re-opened and the defendant's testimony and her witnesses, if any, to be taken.