[2021] KECPT 275 (KLR)

[2021] KECPT 275 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the applicants failed to comply with court orders to file a response to the counterclaim despite being served with the necessary documents via email. Their claim of not receiving the statements was unsubstantiated, and they did not demonstrate any action to follow up or clarify the issue. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECPT 275 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robert Njagi Kimotho; Applicant: Lorna Margaret Kariuki; Respondent: County Sacco Society Limited; Respondent: Restorers Consult Auctioneers
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 273 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Consequential Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Loan Default, Injunctive Relief, Counter Claims
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Setting Aside Judgment Loan Default Injunctive Relief Counter Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Njagi Kimotho

Applicant

Lorna Margaret Kariuki

Applicant

County Sacco Society Limited

Respondent

Restorers Consult Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Consequential Orders

  1. 1 Whether the judgment delivered on 12.3.2021 should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for non-attendance and non-compliance with court orders.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the applicants failed to comply with court orders to file a response to the counterclaim despite being served with the necessary documents via email. Their claim of not receiving the statements was unsubstantiated, and they did not demonstrate any action to follow up or clarify the issue. The hearing was scheduled as a physical session, and the applicants' absence was not justified by the alleged technological challenges. The tribunal held that the applicants had not shown sufficient cause for non-attendance or non-compliance and that the discretion to set aside judgment should not be exercised in their favour. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 16.3.2021 is dismissed.
  • Costs to be paid by the claimants to the 1st respondent.