[2019] KEHC 5470 (KLR)
The court found that the issue of service of the substantive motion upon the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents had caused undue delay in the proceedings. Despite multiple opportunities and clear directions from the court, the Respondents failed to serve their affidavit challenging service within the stipulated timeline....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5470 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Pauline Wanjiku Kigera; Applicant: Emily Chepkemoi; Respondent: County Assembly of Samburu; Respondent: Speaker, County Assembly of Samburu; Respondent: Clerk, County Assembly of Samburu; Respondent: Jennifer Letuya; Respondent: Stafania Langasunyuya; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 7 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Affidavit of Service and Procedural Compliance
- Outcome
- Affidavit of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents struck out for non-compliance; application to summon process server refused.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Affidavit of Service, Court Orders Compliance
- 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
Pauline Wanjiku Kigera
Applicant
Emily Chepkemoi
Applicant
County Assembly of Samburu
Respondent
Speaker, County Assembly of Samburu
Respondent
Clerk, County Assembly of Samburu
Respondent
Jennifer Letuya
Respondent
Stafania Langasunyuya
Respondent
Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Affidavit of Service and Procedural Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents were duly served with the substantive notice of motion as directed by the court.
- 2 Whether the affidavit of service filed by the Ex Parte Applicants complied with the court's orders.
- 3 Whether the affidavit filed by the Respondents challenging service should be admitted despite late service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issue of service of the substantive motion upon the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents had caused undue delay in the proceedings. Despite multiple opportunities and clear directions from the court, the Respondents failed to serve their affidavit challenging service within the stipulated timeline. The court emphasized that its orders are not made in vain and must be adhered to strictly. As a result, the affidavit filed by the Respondents on the last permissible day but served late was struck out for non-compliance with the court's order. The court also refused the request to summon the process server for cross-examination, prioritizing the expedient disposal of the...
Court Disposition
Affidavit of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents struck out for non-compliance; application to summon process server refused.
Orders
- The affidavit sworn by counsel for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and filed on 28/05/2019 is struck out for failure to comply with the court order of 14/05/2019 regarding service.
- The prayer to summon the process server for cross-examination is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NANYUKI
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 7 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. PAULINE WANJIKU KIGERA
2. EMILY CHEPKEMOI..............................................................APPLICANTS
AND
1. COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF SAMBURU
2. SPEAKER, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF SAMBURU
3. CLERK, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF SAMBURU
4. JENNIFER LETUYA
5. STAFANIA LANGASUNYA
6. INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL &
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION................................................RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
1. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted herein on 27/02/2018. The Ex Parte Applicants then filed the substantive notice of motion dated 28/02/2018. An issue regarding service of that motion was raised on 21/05/2015 and gain on 16/07/2018.
2. On that latter date the court noted that it appeared that the substantive motion dated 28/02/2018 together with necessary accompanying documents had never been served. The court therefore directed that the motion be served upon all the Respondents within seven (7) days of that date. In default of such service the notice of motion would stand dismissed with costs.
3. On 02/10/2018 the Ex Parte Applicants reported to court that the substantive motion had been served upon all the Respondents as directed by the court on 16/07/2018. The 4th Respondent admitted that it had been duly served. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents however, denied that they had been duly served. The court therefore directed that the Ex Parte Applicants do file an affidavit of service as required by Order 53, Rule 3(3)of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
4. On 06/02/2019 it was reported to court that indeed an affidavit of service had been filed on 09/10/2018 detailing service upon all the Respondents, such service having been directed by the court on 16/7/2018.
5. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents persisted in their stand that they had not been duly served with the substantive motion as had been directed by the court on 16/07/2018. The Ex Parte Applicants then sought time to put in a more detailed affidavit of service.
6. On 03/04/2019 it was reported to court that such detailed affidavit of service was filed on 18/02/2019. On 14/05/2019 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents sought leave to file an affidavit to challenge the affidavit of service. Leave was granted, and the court directed that such affidavit be filed and served within 14 days, that is, on or before 28/05/2019.
7. As it turned out the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed their affidavit on 28/05/2019 challenging the affidavit of service – the very last day. Service of the same was effected late on 03/06/2019.
8. As can be seen from the above chronology of events, the issue of service of the substantive motion upon the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents has occupied the court for quite some time and taken up a considerable amount of its time. That is why the court has on at least two occasions set strict timelines within which certain things must be done.
9. Court orders are not made in vain, particularly in the circumstances narrated above. The issues of service upon the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents of the substantive motion has dragged on for far too long occasioning unnecessary delay in these proceedings, and the court will not countenance this delay any more.
10. In the event therefore, and in the interests of expedient disposal of the substantive dispute herein, the affidavit sworn by the counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Lawrence Macharia Karanja, and filed in court on 28/05/2019, is hereby struck out for failure to comply with the order of the court of 14/05/2019 regarding service of the same. The prayer that the process server who served the substantive notice of motion be summoned for cross-examination upon his affidavits of service is refused. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NANYUKI THIS 23rd DAY OF JULY 2019
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 25th DAY OF JULY 2019