[2012] KEHC 1930 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with Order 22 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no proper notice of entry of judgment served on the defendant. This procedural lapse was deemed fatal to the execution process. The court also noted that the defendant raised triable issues in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1930 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicodemus Atito Arodi; Respondent: Maxwel Otieno Odongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 197 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Execution
- Outcome
- Application allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Execution of Decree, Service of Process, Court Discretion
- 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
Nicodemus Atito Arodi
Applicant
Maxwel Otieno Odongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment and execution process should be set aside due to alleged procedural irregularities.
- 2 Whether the defendant was properly served with notice of entry of judgment as required by law.
- 3 Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file a defence out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with Order 22 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no proper notice of entry of judgment served on the defendant. This procedural lapse was deemed fatal to the execution process. The court also noted that the defendant raised triable issues in the plaint, and justice required that the defendant not be condemned unheard. Exercising its discretion, the court set aside the judgment and execution, granted the defendant leave to file and serve a defence within 14 days, and imposed a condition that the defendant deposit Kshs. 335,000 with the Deputy Registrar within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff could proceed with...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The defendant is granted leave to file and serve his defence within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
- The defendant shall deposit Kshs. 335,000 with the Deputy Registrar within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 197 OF 2010
NICODEMUS ATITO ARODI.............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MAXWEL OTIENO ODONGO.......................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The defendant\'s notice of motion dated 23-9-3011 prays for the following orders:-
(1)The decree and judgment or order giving rise to execution together with the entire execution process be and is hereby set aside.
(2)The defence annexed hereto be deemed properly filed and served and the matter to proceed to full hearing inter parties with both parties being at liberty to call witnesses and participate in the case in the usual way upon fulfillment of the normal preliminaries.
The application is supported by the defendant\'s affidavit as well as that of Sylvester Otieno Madialo Advocate.
This suit has had a very long history full of intricts. The suit was filed way back in the year 2005. Thereafter it appears that the defendant was served. The counsel on record entered an appearance but did not file defence as required. The plaintiff requested for judgment which was granted and execution proceedings commenced against the defendant.
The execution proceedings according to the parties was compromised through a consent on 8-5-2006 which I have been unable to get from the court file. In the alleged compromise the defendant was granted leave to file his defence. He did not but again there is allegation from the supporting affidavit of Mr. Madialo sworn on 23-9-2011 that he filed and gave the same to Mr. K\'opot advocate who infact proceeded to frame issues.
As stated earlier on I have been unable to get the proceedings of Judge Mwera of 8-5-2006 as contended by Mr. Madialo\'s supplementary affidavit sworn on 5-6-2012.
The plaintiff has sworn a replying affidavit dated 24-1-2012 in which he has accused the defendant among other things taking part in the “disappearance” of the court file for the period of upto three years.
Setting aside any judgment must of course attract the discretion of the court. Having gone through the pleadings by the parties, what is clear is that there have been numerous technical obstacles laid on the way of this suit. Part of the obstacles include the counsels appointed by the defendant. It is indeed difficult to know whether Mr. Madialo served the Mr. K\'opot with the defence or not. One wonders why Mr. K\'opot proceeded to frame issues for determination.
The other issue is the non compliance by the plaintiff orfOrder 22 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which was indeed fatal. The same states:
“Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the court which passed the decree or if the decree has been sent under the provisions herebefore contained to another court, then such court or to the proper officer thereof and applications under this rule shall be in accordance with form No. 14 of Appendix A provided that where judgment in default of appearance or defence has been entered against a defendant no execution by payment attachment or eviction shall issue unless not less than ten days notice of the entry of judgment has been given either at his address for service or served on him personally and a copy of that notice shall be filed with the first application for execution”.
It follows therefore that the notice of such judgment ought to be served to the judgment debtor so as to forewarn him of the impending executions.
I have been unable to see such notice by the judgment creditor. What is in the court file is dated 4-12-2007 but does not have the address of the defendant.
I have further perused the plaint herein. It raises triable issues which requires adduction of evidence. The defendant ought not to be contempt unheard. Whether or not the statute of limitation mulitates against the plaintiff is for the trial court to determine.
In light of the decision of Python Waweru Maina -VS- Mugiria [1983] KLR page 79where the court state:
“There are no limits or restrictions on the Judge\'s discretion except that it should be based on such terms as may be just because the main concern is to do justice to the parties”.
Taking the totality of this case and the history behind it and in applying the discretion of the court I do order that:
(a)The defendant is hereby granted leave to file and serve his defence with 14 days from the delivery of this ruling.
(b)The defendant shall deposit with the Deputy Registrar within the next 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling the sum of Kshs. 335,000/=.
(c)In default of prayer (b) above the plaintiff shall proceed to execute for the whole amount.
(d)Costs of this application to the plaintiff/respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 15th day of October 2012
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE
In the presence of:
Agone for Omaya for the applicant
Omondi for the respondent
HKC/va