[2013] KEHC 4134 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents' counsel was at fault for failing to serve the Notice of Appointment on the petitioner's advocates, which led to process being served directly on the respondents. The court held that it is possible the respondents were unaware or believed their advocate was handling the matter,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4134 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sonia Kwamboka Rasugu; Respondent: Sandalwood Hotel & Resort Limited T/A Paradise Beach Resort; Respondent: Leon Muriithi Ndubai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 156 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment set aside on terms
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Process
- 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
Sonia Kwamboka Rasugu
Applicant
Sandalwood Hotel & Resort Limited T/A Paradise Beach Resort
Respondent
Leon Muriithi Ndubai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte judgment delivered on 26th October 2012 should be set aside for failure to properly serve court process on the respondents' advocates.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be penalized for the mistake or oversight of their advocates in failing to serve the Notice of Appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents' counsel was at fault for failing to serve the Notice of Appointment on the petitioner's advocates, which led to process being served directly on the respondents. The court held that it is possible the respondents were unaware or believed their advocate was handling the matter, and therefore, the client should not be penalized for the mistake or oversight of its advocates. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the ex-parte judgment to avoid injustice, subject to terms as to costs and further directions.
Court Disposition
judgment set aside on terms
Orders
- The judgment dated 26th October 2012 is set aside.
- The respondents jointly and severally shall pay costs of Kshs.60,000 within 7 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Petition 156 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
SONIA KWAMBOKA RASUGU ………................….…....……PETITIONER
AND
SANDALWOOD HOTEL & RESORT LIMITED
T/A PARADISE BEACH RESORT …..................………1ST RESPONDENT
LEON MURIITHI NDUBAI .......…..……......................... 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The general principle for setting aside judgment for failure to attend a hearing is settled. In Shah v Mbogo and another [1967] EA 116, the court noted that the court’s discretion to set aside an ex-parte judgment is to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident inadvertence or excusable mistake or error, but not to assist a person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise to obstruct or delay the cause of justice.
2. In the Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2012, the petitioner seeks to set aside thejudgment delivered on 26th October 2012 on the ground that the petitioner’s advocates on record deliberately failed to serve court process on the advocates for the respondents but purported to serve the respondent in person.
3. The application is opposed on the basis that the respondents’ advocates did not serve the Notice of Appointment on the petitioner’s advocates hence causing the service of process to be effected directly on the respondents.
4. I have weighed the arguments on both sides and I consider the respondent’s counsel to blame for failing to serve the Notice of Appointment on the petitioner’s advocates. The respondent’s admit that process was served on them directly yet there was no court attendance. It is therefore possible that the respondents were not aware or were lulled into a sense of belief that their appointed advocate was attending to the matter. In the circumstances the client should not be penalized for the mistake or oversight of its advocates.
5. In the circumstances, I think the proper order is to set aside the judgment on terms. I therefore make the following order;
(1)The judgment dated 26th October 2012 be and is hereby set aside.
(2)The respondents jointly and severally shall pay costs of Kshs.60,000/= being costs of the proceedings and application within 7 days.
(3)The replying affidavit shall be filed and served within seven (7) days from today.
(4)Mention on 21. 03. 2013 for directions and further orders as to hearing the petition.
DELIVEREDand DATED at NAIROBI this 8th day of March 2013
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
COURT– Ruling read and delivered in open court.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Ms Oduor instructed by Nungo, Oduor and Waigwa Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr Kinga instructed by Khaminwa and Khaminwa Advocates for the respondent.
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]