[2025] KEHC 5748 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5748 (KLR)

The court found that the service of the applications dated 30 September 2024 and 15 October 2024 was defective, as it was effected on the wrong email address. Both the company and its counsel admitted the error and confirmed that the failure to serve was not deliberate. Given that the 1st respondent was not properly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5748 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sleek Trading Company; Respondent: Samuel Matheka Nguluku; Respondent: Morris Muvengi Musya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E303 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders and for Leave to Respond
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
J Ngaah
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Leave to Respond, Representation Change
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Service of Process Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Leave to Respond Representation Change

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sleek Trading Company

Applicant

Samuel Matheka Nguluku

Respondent

Morris Muvengi Musya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders and for Leave to Respond

  1. 1 Whether the service of the applications dated 30 September 2024 and 15 October 2024 was proper and effective.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte proceedings and orders arising from the improperly served applications should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent should be granted unconditional leave to defend and respond to the application dated 30 September 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the service of the applications dated 30 September 2024 and 15 October 2024 was defective, as it was effected on the wrong email address. Both the company and its counsel admitted the error and confirmed that the failure to serve was not deliberate. Given that the 1st respondent was not properly served and was denied an opportunity to be heard, the ex parte proceedings and orders arising from the improperly served applications were set aside. The court granted the 1st respondent unconditional leave to defend and respond to the application dated 30 September 2024. The court declined to cite the applicant's counsel for perjury, finding no evidence of deliberate intent...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • Ex parte proceedings and orders arising from the applications dated 30 September 2024 and 15 October 2024 are set aside.
  • The 1st respondent is granted unconditional leave to defend and respond to the application dated 30 September 2024.