[2010] KEHC 2533 (KLR)
The court found that the error in the defence, namely the incorrect description of the court in the title, was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a mistake made in the advocate's office. The court held that the application did not meet the requirements for review under Order XLIV of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2533 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Chege Waweru (suing as the administrator of the estate of Waweru Kanini alias Waweru Kenini); Defendant: Ephantus Mwangi & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 17 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion Seeking Review, Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, and Amendment of Defence
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; application struck out with costs
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Striking Out of Defence, Preliminary Objection, Typographical Error, Amendment of Pleadings
- 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
Stephen Chege Waweru (suing as the administrator of the estate of Waweru Kanini alias Waweru Kenini)
Plaintiff
Ephantus Mwangi & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion Seeking Review, Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, and Amendment of Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mistake that led to the striking out of the defence was a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the application met the requirements for review under Order XLIV of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether there was an order capable of being stayed or a defence capable of amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the error in the defence, namely the incorrect description of the court in the title, was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a mistake made in the advocate's office. The court held that the application did not meet the requirements for review under Order XLIV of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the mistake was within the knowledge of the applicant and not of the type contemplated for review. The other prayers sought by the applicant were dependent on the success of the review application, and since the review was not granted, those prayers could not be entertained. The court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the motion with costs.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; application struck out with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 2nd January 2010 is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Case 17 of 2009 STEPHEN CHEGE WAWERU(SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
WAWERU KANINI ALIAS WAWERU KENINI).....................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
EPHANTUS MWANGI & OTHERS..........................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
On 16th November 2009, this Court struck out the Defendants’ defence on the basis that the same is incompetent as it was found to have been filed in Murang’a Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court. On 17th day of November 2009 the Plaintiff applied for entry of interlocutory judgment against the Defendants in default of defence. The Deputy Registrar of this court entered judgment in terms of the request of 24th November 2009. When the Defendants learnt of this entry of interlocutory judgment, they took out the Notice of Motion dated 2nd January 2010, pursuant to the provisions ofOrder IXB rule 8, Order VIA rule 3andOrder XLIV rule 1 & 2, Sections 3Aand80of the Civil Procedure Act, in which they applied for the following orders:
An order of stay of execution from the orders made on 24th Nov. 2009 pending the hearing of the suit.
An order to review the orders made on 16th November 2009
An order to set aside the exparte judgment made on 24. 11. 09
An order granting the applicants leave to amend the defence dated 17th November 2009.
Costs of the application.
When the motion came up for hearing the Plaintiffs raised the Preliminary Objection against the application. The Preliminary Objection is the subject matter of this matter.
Mr. Mindo, learned advocate for the Plaintiffs, urged this court to dismiss the motion because the same does not meet the requirements for an application for review. Secondly it is argued that there was no order capable of being stayed and thirdly, that there is no defence which this court can amend. Learned advocate pointed out that the mistake sought to be reviewed was made in the offices of the advocate hence it is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Wachira, learned advocate for the Defendants, abandoned the prayer for stay of execution and pursued the remaining orders. Mr. Wachira was of the view that if the order for review is given, then there will be a defence to be amended. He was also of the view that the mistake pointed out is on the face of the record hence the same is capable of being reviewed.
I have considered the submissions of both learned counsels. I have also perused the Notice of Motion plus the affidavits filed in support and the grounds contained in the Notice of Preliminary Objection. The main issue in dispute is whether or not the mistake which led to striking out of the defence was a mistake apparent on record. It is admitted by learned counsels that the defence indicated that it was meant to be filed in Murang’a Principal Magistrate’s Court and on the basis of that the Hon. Mr. Justice Makhandia struck out the same. It is the submission of the defendants that the defence had been filed in the correct court but it had wrongly described the court on its title hence that was a typographical error apparent on the face of the record. UnderOrder XLIVof the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for review must be based on the discovery of new and important evidence which was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The applicant for review must strictly prove the grounds for review except for review on the grounds of mistake or error apparent on the face of record failure to which the application will not be allowed. When the issue touching on the defence was raised before Mr. Justice Makhandia, Mr. Wambugu, learned advocate, informed the court that he was not aware of the issue. This prompted the Hon. Judge to proceed to strike out the defence. Can this be said to be a mistake which was not within the knowledge of the Applicant? I do not think so. I am convinced this application does not meet the requirements for review. The other prayers is dependent on the application for review in that if the application for review is allowed, it means that the order striking out the application would be set aside and the defence with its typographical errors would be reinstated. If well advised there are other avenues through which the applicant can seek redress but not through such an application. The Preliminary Objection is upheld. Consequently the motion is ordered struck out with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 23rd day of April 2010.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE