[2025] KEELC 4018 (KLR)
The court found that the default judgment entered on 17th June, 2021 was regular, as the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants were properly served using the address appearing on the title and official search, and no sufficient evidence was provided to prove otherwise. However, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the judgment, noting that the applicants' draft defence and counterclaim raised triable issues that should be determined on merit. The court emphasized the need to do substantive justice by allowing all parties an opportunity to be heard, provided that the 2nd defendant/applicant pays the plaintiff/respondent the costs of the application before the matter proceeds to...
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 4018 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Tom Onyango Oketch; Defendant: Hassan Ali Hussein; Defendant: Amina Hassan; Defendant: John Gatobu Kirimania; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 2025
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 2141 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Related Orders
- Outcome
- Application allowed; default judgment set aside; defence and counterclaim deemed filed upon payment of costs.
- Judges
- CG Mbogo
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Process, Title to Land, Substituted Service, Amendment of Pleadings
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tom Onyango Oketch
Plaintiff
Hassan Ali Hussein
Defendant
Amina Hassan
Defendant
John Gatobu Kirimania
Defendant
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Related Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default judgment delivered on 17th June, 2021 was regular or irregular and should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants were properly served with summons and pleadings.
- 3 Whether the applicants have raised triable issues warranting the matter to be heard on merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the default judgment entered on 17th June, 2021 was regular, as the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants were properly served using the address appearing on the title and official search, and no sufficient evidence was provided to prove otherwise. However, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the judgment, noting that the applicants' draft defence and counterclaim raised triable issues that should be determined on merit. The court emphasized the need to do substantive justice by allowing all parties an opportunity to be heard, provided that the 2nd defendant/applicant pays the plaintiff/respondent the costs of the application before the matter proceeds to...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; default judgment set aside; defence and counterclaim deemed filed upon payment of costs.
Orders
- The judgment delivered on 17th June, 2021 is set aside.
- The draft statement of defence and counterclaim dated 28th October, 2024 is deemed as duly filed subject to payment of requisite filing fees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment