[2016] KEELRC 1384 (KLR)
The court found that although it was previously satisfied that service had been properly effected, there was now a shadow of doubt regarding service as raised by the respondent. The court also determined that the draft defence annexed to the application raised triable issues. Balancing the right to be heard and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1384 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Paul Kiarie Muiruri; Respondent: Widrups Group Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1420 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- conditional stay of execution and setting aside of ex parte judgment granted
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment
- 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
Paul Kiarie Muiruri
Claimant
Widrups Group Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was properly served with summons to enter appearance.
- 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to stay of execution and setting aside of the ex parte judgment.
- 3 Whether the respondent has demonstrated triable issues in its draft defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although it was previously satisfied that service had been properly effected, there was now a shadow of doubt regarding service as raised by the respondent. The court also determined that the draft defence annexed to the application raised triable issues. Balancing the right to be heard and the need for finality in litigation, the court held that a conditional stay of execution and setting aside of the ex parte judgment was appropriate. The respondent was ordered to deposit the decretal sum in court within 21 days as security, failing which execution would proceed. This approach ensures that the claimant's interests are protected while giving the respondent an...
Court Disposition
conditional stay of execution and setting aside of ex parte judgment granted
Orders
- The respondent shall deposit the decretal sum of Kshs.1,465,462 in court within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
- In default of deposit, execution shall proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1420 OF 2014
PAUL KIARIE MUIRURI........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
WIDRUPS GROUP LIMITED.........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a motion dated 1st September, 2015, the respondent, seeks stay of execution of ex parte judgment entered on 22nd July, 2015 and that the respondent be granted unconditional leave to defend the claim.
2. The application is based on the grounds among others that the summons were never served on the judgment debtor hence no appearance or defence could be filed. Further that the decree holder had obtained warrants of attachment and sale of the respondent’s property and the same had been proclaimed. The respondent further stated it had defence to the claim and should be heard on merit. The application was supported by the affidavit of one James Rapando who deponed further on the grounds upon which the application was brought.
3. The claimant opposed the application insisting the respondent was duly served.
4. The considerations for grant of stay of execution are substantially contained in order 42 rule 6 of Civil Procedure Rules which by extension apply to execution of decrees issued by this Court. The order provides in paraphrase that no order of stay shall be made unless (a) the Court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay and such security as the Court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.
5. The Court proceeded to hear this matter ex parte after being reasonably persuaded that there was proper service. The summons to enter appearance were received and duly stamped by the respondent. They however now claim the stamp was a forgery. The Court will not delve further in this aspect.
6. The Judgment of this Court was for Kshs.1,465,462 together with costs. The respondent has not stated that if it pays the decretal sum the substantial loss will occur. All the respondent said is that if the ex parte hearing is not set aside it will have been condemned unheard.
7. The right to be heard is fundamental principle of natural justice. The Court encourages trial inter partes since a decision reached after hearing both parties is more sustainable than an ex parte judgment. The Court will however hear and conclude a matter ex parte where it is convinced that service was properly effected and the defendant has ignored or omitted to enter appearance or file a defence. A retrial is double work for the Court hence should only be ordered in cases where it is clear that the respondent was not served and further that the respondent has triable defence to the claim.
8. The Court has considered the draft defence annexed to the application and is reasonably persuaded that issues raised are triable. On the issue of service there is shadow of doubt in the mind of the Court that service was not done as claimed by the respondent.
9. As required by Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court will grant a conditional stay and setting aside to the effect that the respondent deposits in Court the decretal sum within 21 days from todays date in default execution shall proceed.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 1st day of April 2016
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 1st day of April 2016
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge