[2022] KEELC 2724 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2724 (KLR)

The court found that although the application to set aside the ex parte proceedings and orders of December 2, 2021 was brought after a significant delay, the defendant's counsel had provided a doctor's letter confirming indisposition on the material date. The court accepted this as sufficient cause and gave the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2724 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited; Plaintiff: Metropol Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff: Vitafoam Products Limited; Plaintiff: NCP Paper Mills Limited/VitaFoam products Limited; Plaintiff: Anju Mohanlal Shah; Plaintiff: Jinit Mohanlal Shah; Plaintiff: Mohanlal Dharamshi Shah; Defendant: County Government of Kiambu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1191 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Outcome
Application allowed with conditions.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Sufficient Cause, Delay in Application, Prejudice to Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Sufficient Cause Delay in Application Prejudice to Parties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited

Plaintiff

Metropol Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Vitafoam Products Limited

Plaintiff

NCP Paper Mills Limited/VitaFoam products Limited

Plaintiff

Anju Mohanlal Shah

Plaintiff

Jinit Mohanlal Shah

Plaintiff

Mohanlal Dharamshi Shah

Plaintiff

County Government of Kiambu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the ex parte proceedings and orders of December 2, 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether prejudice would be occasioned to either party if the orders are set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the application to set aside the ex parte proceedings and orders of December 2, 2021 was brought after a significant delay, the defendant's counsel had provided a doctor's letter confirming indisposition on the material date. The court accepted this as sufficient cause and gave the benefit of doubt, finding that the absence was not deliberate or intentional. However, the court noted that the defendant's counsel ought to have informed the plaintiffs' counsel in good time. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the ex parte proceedings and orders, but imposed a condition that the defendant pay the plaintiffs throw away costs of Kshs 15,000. The costs...

Court Disposition

Application allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • The ex parte hearing and all consequential orders delivered on December 2, 2021 are set aside.
  • The matter shall be heard afresh on merit.