[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the ex parte proceedings and orders of December 2, 2021.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application is excusable.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government of Kiambu (Environment & Land Case 1191 of 2013) [2022] KEELC 2724 (KLR) (23 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 2724 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 1191 of 2013
LC Komingoi, J
June 23, 2022
Between
Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited
1st Plaintiff
Metropol Enterprises Limited
2nd Plaintiff
Vitafoam Products Limited
3rd Plaintiff
NCP Paper Mills Limited/VitaFoam products Limited
4th Plaintiff
Anju Mohanlal Shah
5th Plaintiff
Jinit Mohanlal Shah
6th Plaintiff
Mohanlal Dharamshi Shah
7th Plaintiff
and
County Government of Kiambu
Defendant
Ruling
1. This is the notice of motion dated March 7, 2022 brought under article 50 of the Constitution, 2010, under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and any other enabling provisions of the law:-
2. It seeks:-1. Spent.2. Spent.3. That, the exparte hearing and all consequential orders delivered on December 2, 2021 be set aside and the matter be heard a fresh on merit.4. That costs be provided for.
3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are set out in paragraphs 1 to 13.
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of David Mararo, the defendant’s legal counsel, sworn on the March 7, 2022.
5. The application is opposed. There is a replying affidavit sworn by John Mulika Mbaluto, the plaintiffs’ advocate on the March 24, 2022.
6. The court with the consent of the parties directed that the notice of motion be canvassed by written submissions.
7. I have considered the notice of motion and the affidavits in support. I have also considered the response thereto, the written submissions and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether this application is merited.
8. It is the defendant’s/applicant’s case that counsel could not attend court on December 2, 2021 due to indisposition. He has annexed to his affidavit a letter from the doctor showing that he had been treated at the defendant’s Department of Health Services and had been given sick off. It is further counsel submission that the defendant will suffer great prejudice if the proceedings of December 2, 2021 are not set aside.
9. The plaintiffs/respondents on the other hand contend that the applicant has not met the threshold of sufficient cause or good cause to warrant the court’s discretion in granting the remedy of setting aside the proceedings of December 2, 2021.
10. I have gone through the court record. On the October 6, 2021this court was not sitting. The matter was placed before Oguttu Mboya J who set down the hearing of the suit for December 2, 2021. Mr Mararo for the defendant was present when this date was given.
11. I agree with counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that this application has been brought after a long delay. It has been brought almost three (3) months after the proceedings of December 2, 2021. No explanation has been given.
12. Be that as it may, counsel for the defendant/applicant has exhibited a letter from the doctor confirming that he was indisposed on the December 2, 2021. This court gives counsel the benefit of doubt in finding that his absence was not deliberate and or intentional. He however ought to have informed counsel for the plaintiffs in good time.
13. I find merit in this application and grant the orders sought in terms of prayer no 3 of the notice of motion on condition that the defendant pays the plaintiffs throw away costs of Kshs 15,000. The costs of this application do abide the outcome of the main suit.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022. L. KOMINGOIJUDGEIn the presence of:-Mr. Mbaluto for the PlaintiffsMr. Mararo for the DefendantSteve - Court Assistant