[2020] KEHC 10359 (KLR)
The court found that the motion dated 20.11.2020 was urgent as it sought to stay execution of judgments and decrees, which could result in prejudice if not addressed promptly. Despite opposition from the plaintiff, defendant, and interested parties regarding urgency, the court exercised its discretion to certify the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 10359 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Southdown Developers Limited; Defendant: Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited; Applicant: Haithar Haji Abdi; Applicant: Abdi Rahimaithar Haji; Respondent: Oceania Investment Limited; Respondent: AVIC International Project (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1181 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Directions on Interlocutory Motion
- Outcome
- Motion certified as urgent; directions issued for responses and written submissions.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Urgency Certification, Service of Process, Affidavit of Service, Written Submissions, Stay of Execution
- 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
Southdown Developers Limited
Plaintiff
Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited
Defendant
Haithar Haji Abdi
Applicant
Abdi Rahimaithar Haji
Applicant
Oceania Investment Limited
Respondent
AVIC International Project (K) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Directions on Interlocutory Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion dated 20.11.2020 should be certified as urgent and heard on a priority basis.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be granted time to file responses to the motion.
- 3 Whether the motion should be disposed of by written submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the motion dated 20.11.2020 was urgent as it sought to stay execution of judgments and decrees, which could result in prejudice if not addressed promptly. Despite opposition from the plaintiff, defendant, and interested parties regarding urgency, the court exercised its discretion to certify the motion as urgent. The court further held that all respondents should be given 14 days to file and serve their responses to ensure procedural fairness. The court also allowed the applicants to file an affidavit of service to address allegations of non-service of the earlier motion. The matter was directed to be disposed of by written submissions, with clear timelines for filing...
Court Disposition
Motion certified as urgent; directions issued for responses and written submissions.
Orders
- The motion dated 20.11.2020 is certified urgent and to be heard on a priority basis.
- Respondents (plaintiff, defendant, 1st and 2nd interested parties) are given 14 days to file and serve responses to the motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
50 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1181 OF 1992
SOUTHDOWN DEVELOPERS LIMITED............................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
KENYA NATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED..........DEFENDANT
AND
HAITHAR HAJI ABDI ............................1ST APPLICANT/AGGRIEVED PARTY
ABDI RAHIMAITHAR HAJI..................2ND APPLICANT/AGGRIEVED PARTY
OCEANIA INVESTMENT LIMITED..........................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
AVIC INTERNATIONAL PROJECT (K)
LIMITED.......................................................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CIVIL SUIT NO. 6054 OF 1991
HAITHAR HAJI ABDI..................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
ABDI RAHIMAITHAR HAJI.......................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
KENYA NATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED.......DEFENDANT
RULING ON DIRECTIONS
1) The matter was placed before this court to issue directions onthe motion dated 20thNovember 2020. The aforesaid motion is taken out by Hithari Haji Abdi and Abdi Rahimarthar Haji, the 1stand 2ndInterested Parties herein.
2) Mr. Oyatsi who appeared on behalf of the applicants, urged thiscourt to certify the motion as urgent and to further list it for interpartes hearing on priority basis. The applicants also asked this court to direct the motion to be disposed of by written submissions and further grant the applicant leave to file an affidavit of service to answer the allegations made by the respondents that they were not served with the motion dated 17. 1.2020.
3) Mr. Ondieki, learned advocate for Kenya National CapitalCorporation Ltd, the defendant herein, urged this court not to certify the applicants’ motion as urgent. He pointed out that the application for review was in respect of a ruling delivered in the year 2003. The defendant’s advocate sought for 14 days to enable it file a response to the applicants’ motion. The learned advocate was not averse to have the aforesaid motion disposed of by written submissions.
4) Mr. Ayieko, learned advocate for Southdown Developers Ltd, theplaintiff herein, stated that it did not participate in the motion dated 17. 1.2020 which gave rise to this court’s ruling delivered on 13. 11. 2020 because it was not served upon it. The plaintiff stated that it needed 14 days to file a response to the instant motion.
5) Mr. Chege, learned advocate for the 1st and 2nd InterestedParties stated that his clients did not participate in the motion dated 17. 1.2020 because the same was not served upon the Interested Parties.
6) Having considered the rival oral submissions, it is apparent thatthere is no dispute that there is need to allow the respondents to respond to the motion dated 20/11/2020. They have each asked to be given 14 days to do so. The other proposal which was not opposed is the request to have the matter disposed of by written submissions.
7) The plaintiff, the defendant and the Interested Parties urgedthis court not to certify the motion dated 20. 11. 2020 as urgent since the same seeks to review a ruling which arose out an application which had sought to inter alia declare the ruling delivered on 15. 10. 2003 as null and void.
8) A careful perusal of the motion and the supporting and thefurther affidavit shows that the motion dated 20. 11. 2020 is urgent since it seeks to stay the execution of certain judgments and decrees issued by various courts. I am convinced there is need to certify the same as urgent.
9) In the end, I make the following orders and directions:
i. The motion dated 20. 11. 2020 is certified urgent hence it should be heard on priority basis.
ii. The respondents namely:
a) The plaintiff,
b) The defendant and
c) The 1st and 2nd Interested Parties are given 14 days to file and serve their responses to the aforesaid motion.
iii. The 1st and 2nd applicants are granted leave to file their affidavit of service evidencing service of the motion dated 17. 1.2020.
iv. The motion dated 20. 11. 2020 to be disposed of by written submissions.
a) The applicants to file and serve written submission within 14 days from the date of service by the respondents of their responses to the instant motion.
b) The respondents to have 14 days from the date of service by the applicants to file and serve written submissions.
v. Mention on 18th January 2021 before the duty Judge to confirm compliance.
vi. Ruling on the motion dated 20. 11. 2020 to be delivered on 5/3/2021.
Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 1st day of December, 2020.
............................
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
………………………………… for the Plaintiff
………………………………… for the Defendant
………………………………... for the 1st and 2nd Applicants
………………………………… for the 1st Interested Party
……………………………….. for the 2nd Interested Party