[2023] KEELC 22360 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were properly served and were competently represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The record showed that they participated in the proceedings leading to the judgment, including the filing of a detailed replying affidavit through the 1st defendant on their behalf. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 22360 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Perez Atieno Sule; Defendant: Selina Aoko Otieno; Defendant: Kevin Keegan Otieno; Defendant: Mary Akoth Otieno; Defendant: Raymond Oduor Muhula
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 30 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Process, Right to Be Heard, Adverse Possession
- 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
Perez Atieno Sule
Plaintiff
Selina Aoko Otieno
Defendant
Kevin Keegan Otieno
Defendant
Mary Akoth Otieno
Defendant
Raymond Oduor Muhula
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment should be set aside on grounds of non-service and denial of a fair hearing.
- 2 Whether the applicants participated in the proceedings leading to the judgment.
- 3 Whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant setting aside the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were properly served and were competently represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The record showed that they participated in the proceedings leading to the judgment, including the filing of a detailed replying affidavit through the 1st defendant on their behalf. The judgment was not entered ex parte or in default of appearance and defence as alleged by the applicants. Consequently, no sufficient grounds were disclosed to warrant setting aside the judgment. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 30/1/2023 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Sule v Otieno & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 30 of 2017) [2023] KEELC 22360 (KLR) (14 December 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 22360 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment & Land Case 30 of 2017
E Asati, J
December 14, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. KISUMU/WATHOREGO/916 AND RESULTANT SUBDIVISION INTO LR NO. KISUMU/WATHOREGO/5155,5156 AND 5157 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CAP 22 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 37 RULE 7(1) CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
Between
Perez Atieno Sule
Plaintiff
and
Selina Aoko Otieno
1st Defendant
Kevin Keegan Otieno
2nd Defendant
Mary Akoth Otieno
3rd Defendant
Raymond Oduor Muhula
4th Defendant
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of the Notice of Motion application dated 30/1/2023 brought by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The substantive prayer in the application is prayer No. (d) which is a prayer for setting aside of the judgement and for the applicants to be allowed to file and serve replying affidavit to the amended originating summons.
2. The grounds upon which the application is brought are that the applicants have a good and plausible response against the Plaintiff’s claim as set out in the amended originating summons. That the applicants were not served with either the originating summons, amended originating summons or any notice to appear in court. That they came to know about the case when they were served with a letter from Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates to attend court on the judgement date. That the applicants should be given a chance to be heard in line with the rules of natural justice. That the plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the application is allowed.
3. The application was supported by the averments in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the applicants jointly on 30/1/2023 and the response to replying affidavit sworn on 27/3/2023 by the applicants jointly.
4. The application was opposed vide the contents of the replying affidavit sworn on 5th february 2023 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that the applicants were served with the originating summons whereupon they instructed the firm of Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co Advocates who entered appearance on their behalf and on behalf of the 1st defendant and represented them. that the 1st defendant is the mother of the applicants. That the application is fatally defective.
5. Though the applicants describe the judgement as default judgement, the record shows that the applicants participated in the proceedings that lead to the judgement. They were competently represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The judgement was not ex parte or in default of appearance and defence in so far as it concerns the present applicants. The record also shows that the applicants presented their defence to the Plaintiff’s claim vide the detailed replying affidavit sworn by the 1st defendant on their behalf.
6. No sufficient grounds have been disclosed for setting aside the judgement. Application is hereby dismissed. costs to the plaintiff.
Orders accordingly.
RULING, DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, READ VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION.E. ASATI,JUDGE.In the presence of:No appearance for the Plaintiff/Respondent.2nd Respondent/Applicant present in person.3rd Respondent/Applicant present in person.Odeny for the 4th Respondent