[2023] KEHC 18639 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant's grounds of opposition and written submissions, though filed and served, were not considered in the ruling of October 13, 2022 due to inadvertence by court staff. This constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and setting aside of the previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 18639 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shaba Civil Engineering Construction Limited; Defendant: Tullow Kenya BV
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Lodwar
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 2 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Ruling and Reinstate Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed; previous ruling set aside; motion reinstated for fresh hearing.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Review of Court Orders, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Shaba Civil Engineering Construction Limited
Plaintiff
Tullow Kenya BV
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Ruling and Reinstate Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its ruling and order delivered on October 13, 2022 due to failure to consider the defendant's filed documents.
- 2 Whether the defendant was entitled to bring an application for review despite having filed a notice of appeal.
- 3 Whether the failure to consider the defendant's submissions constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant's grounds of opposition and written submissions, though filed and served, were not considered in the ruling of October 13, 2022 due to inadvertence by court staff. This constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and setting aside of the previous ruling. The court further held that the defendant was entitled to bring the application for review since it had not filed a substantive appeal, only a notice of appeal. The court therefore allowed the application, set aside the ruling/order of October 13, 2022, reinstated the motion dated May 19, 2022 for fresh determination on the merits, and directed that each party bear its own...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; previous ruling set aside; motion reinstated for fresh hearing.
Orders
- The ruling/order given on October 13, 2022 is set aside.
- The motion dated May 19, 2022 is reinstated and to be determined on merits afresh after taking into account the defendant’s documents to wit grounds of opposition and written submissions both dated July 27, 2022.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Shaba Civil Engineering Construction Limited v Tullow Kenya BV (Civil Suit 2 of 2016) [2023] KEHC 18639 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 18639 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Lodwar
Civil Suit 2 of 2016
JK Sergon, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Shaba Civil Engineering Construction Limited
Applicant
and
Tullow Kenya BV
Respondent
Ruling
1. The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated December 20, 2022 taken out by Tullow Kenya BV, the defendant/applicant herein whereof it prayed for the setting aside of the ruling and order delivered virtually on October 13, 2022. The applicant further sought for the motion dated May 19, 2022.
2. The applicant further sought for the motion dated May 19, 2022 to be heard afresh with due consideration of the documents, and responses and submissions filed by the defendant. The defendant/applicant filed in support of the motion the affidavit sworn by Emmanuel Wetangula. Shabaa Civil Engineering Construction Limited filed the replying affidavit sworn by Justus Ewoi to oppose the motion.
3. I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion plus the facts deponed in rival affidavits and submissions. It is the submission of the defendant/applicant that this court delivered its ruling on October 13, 2022 whereof it entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
4. It is pointed out by the defendant that this court arrived at the aforesaid decision without taking into account the defendant’s grounds of opposition and written submissions in response and opposition to the application for entry of judgment.
5. It is averred that the aforesaid documents were filed in court and served upon the plaintiff’s advocate by email on August 1, 2022.
6. In response to the application, the plaintiff/respondent stated that the application is frivolous and is meant to undermine the court process.
7. It is also argued by the plaintiff that the application does not meet the threshold of applications for setting aside of court orders hence it is an abuse of the court process.
8. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant has filed both a notice of appeal and the instant application for review which is not permissible in law.
9. In response to this averment, the defendant admitted that it filed a notice of appeal but did not file the appeal since typed proceedings have not been supplied as requested.
10. In other words, the defendant/applicant is saying that it has not filed the substantive appeal. With respect, I am convinced that the defendant was entitled to bring the instant application since it has not filed the substantive appeal.
11. It is not in dispute that this court issued its ruling on October 13, 2022 without taking into account the defendant’s response and submissions.
12. This court expressly stated that the defendant had not filed the same. The plaintiff’s advocate does not dispute that it was served with the defendant’s grounds of opposition and written submissions. By inadvertence on the part of the court staff, the defendant’s grounds of opposition and written submissions were not printed and placed in the court file to enable this court consider.
13. It is therefore clear that this is an error apparent in the court record which is sufficient ground to review this court ruling and order.
14. In the end, I find the motion dated December 20, 2022 to be meritorious. It is allowed, thus giving rise to issuance of the following orders:-i.The ruling/order given on October 13, 2022 is set aside.ii.The motion dated May 19, 2022 is reinstated and to be determined on merits afresh after taking into account the defendant’s documents to wit grounds of opposition and written submissions both dated July 27, 2022. iii.Ruling on the reinstated motion dated May 19, 2022 to be delivered on May 22, 2023. iv.Each party to meet its own costs on the application
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023. J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:Wakhisi for the ApplicantMiss Leah holding brief for Otieno for the Respondent