[2016] KEHC 5506 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants were not properly served with the application that resulted in the issuance of the warrant of arrest and that the orders which formed the basis for the warrant had been lifted by the Rent Restriction Tribunal. The court was satisfied that the facts deponed in the supporting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5506 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rachel Moraa Turungi; Respondent: Ruth Sally Lumadi Kidake; Respondent: Justus Matundura t/a Jumbo Link Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 426 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Warrant of Arrest
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Warrant of arrest set aside. Costs awarded to the defendants.
- Legal Topics
- Warrant of Arrest, Service of Process, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Rachel Moraa Turungi
Plaintiff
Ruth Sally Lumadi Kidake
Respondent
Justus Matundura t/a Jumbo Link Auctioneers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Warrant of Arrest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the warrant of arrest issued on 29th July 2013 should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendants were properly served with the application leading to the warrant of arrest.
- 3 Whether the orders allegedly disobeyed by the defendants were still in force.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants were not properly served with the application that resulted in the issuance of the warrant of arrest and that the orders which formed the basis for the warrant had been lifted by the Rent Restriction Tribunal. The court was satisfied that the facts deponed in the supporting affidavits were uncontroverted, and that there was no longer a legal basis for the warrant of arrest. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the warrant of arrest, finding the application meritorious and granting the orders sought by the defendants.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Warrant of arrest set aside. Costs awarded to the defendants.
Orders
- Prayer 3 of the motion dated 18th February 2015 is allowed as prayed; the warrant of arrest issued on 29th July 2013 is set aside.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL MISC. APPLI. NO. 426 OF 2013
RACHEL MORAA TURUNGI...................................................... PLAINTIFF
- V E R S U S -
RUTH SALLY LUMADI KIDAKE ..................................1ST RESPONDENT
JUSTUS MATUNDURA
T/A JUMBO LINK AUCTIONEERS..............................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 18th February 2015 taken out by the defendants herein. In the aforesaid motion the defendants sought for the following orders:
1. THAT the honourable court be pleased to certify this application urgent and to hear the same exparte in the first instance due to the said urgency.
2. THAT the honourable court be pleased to stay the execution of the warrant of arrest given in this case on the 29th July 2013 pending the hearing interpartes of this application.
3. THAT the honourable court be pleased to set aside the warrant of arrest issued in this suit on the 29th July 2013.
4. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2) The motion is supported by the affidavits of Ruth Sally Lumadi Kidake and Justus Matundura. When the motion came up for interpartes hearing the defendants were permitted to prosecute the motion exparte since the plaintiff did not file a response neither did she and her advocates turn up for the interpartes hearing of application despite having been served.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the supporting affidavits. As of now, the main prayer sought is for the setting aside of the warrant of arrest issued on 29th July 2013. The defendants have alleged that they were not served with the application which gave rise to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. They also claimed that they were never informed by their erstwhile advocate that a warrant of arrest had been issued against them on 29. 7.2013. The defendants further argued that the order alleged they disobeyed were lifted hence those orders do not exist. I have carefully considered the uncontroverted facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support of the motion. Attached to the affidavit of Ruth Kidake is a copy of court orders issued vide H.C. Misc. Application no. 133 of 2012 staying the execution of the warrant of arrest. There is also an averment that the Rent Restriction Tribunal lifted the orders. The 1st defendant avers that they were surprised to receive copies of the warrant of arrest on 10. 2.2015 from the security staff of her employer. I am now satisfied that indeed the Rent Restriction tribunal lifted the orders that had required the restoration of the attached goods. It is now clear to me that there is need to grant the orders sought because I am convinced that the motion is meritorious.
4) Consequently, prayer 3 of the motion dated 18. 2.2015 is allowed as prayed with costs to the defendants.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 22nd day of April, 2016
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.................................................... for the Applicant
..................................................... for the Respondent