[2014] KEHC 8864 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reason for her counsel's absence on the hearing date and did not explain the two-month delay in seeking to set aside the orders. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and amounted to laches, barring the applicant from equitable relief. Furthermore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8864 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Zilpher Achieng Kepher; Defendant: Mega Wealth International Ltd.; Defendant: Shamsi Trading Company Limited; Defendant: James Gachoki t/a Tigwood Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyandarua
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 348 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Court Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Laches, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Zilpher Achieng Kepher
Plaintiff
Mega Wealth International Ltd.
Defendant
Shamsi Trading Company Limited
Defendant
James Gachoki t/a Tigwood Auctioneers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for review and setting aside of the court order dated 6th May, 2013.
- 2 Whether the delay of two months in filing the application amounts to laches and bars the applicant from relief.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the orders are not set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reason for her counsel's absence on the hearing date and did not explain the two-month delay in seeking to set aside the orders. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and amounted to laches, barring the applicant from equitable relief. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if the orders were not set aside, especially since the orders had already been executed and served. The application was therefore found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 3rd July, 2013 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2012
ZILPHER ACHIENG KEPHER …............................................…..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MEGA WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD.
SHAMSI TRADING COMPANY LIMITED
JAMES GACHOKI T/A TIGWOOD AUCTIONEERS …….............…...….......DEFENDANTS
RULING
By way of a Notice of motion dated the 3rd of July, 2013 brought under order 45 rule 1 (1) and order 51 rules 4 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and under Section 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act the applicant seeks for the review and setting aside of the Court order dated 6th May, 2013 and that the application dated 19th February, 2013 be reinstated and the exparte order of stay of proceedings granted on 18th October, 2012 be set aside.
The grounds are that the applicant has an arguable case with a high probability of success.
That if the Court order dated 6th May, 2013 remains in force the applicant will suffer irreparable damage.
The application is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant who depones that pursuant to a Notice of Motion application dated 18th October, 2012 the 2nd Respondent obtained an order of stay of proceedings in Milimani Chief Magistrate's Civil Case 5300 of 2012.
Further that on the 6th day of May, 2013 the aforementioned application and the one dated 19th February, 2013 were scheduled for hearing, however, Counsel instructed to hold brief failed to attend Court to prosecute the application.
This application is opposed. In the replying affidavit of Michael Maundu it is deponed that the application cannot issue because when the matter was called out on 6th day of May, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. for the hearing of 2nd Defendants application, the same was placed aside to 11:00 a.m. to allow the plaintiffs Advocate to attend Court. That the matter was mentioned around midday while Counsel Mr. Mwinyi was present and he indicated that he did not wish to go on record. It is contended that its not true that the Advocate to hold brief was absent.
It is also contended that the applicant is guilty of laches as the order was granted on 6th May, 2013 a duration of close to two months and no reasons have been given to explain that delay.
Further that the application has been overtaken by events as the formal Court order was extracted on 13th May, 2013 and served upon the executive officer Milimani on 12th June, 2013.
That the applicant does not stand to suffer any prejudice so long as the file is transferred expeditiously.
Upon perusal of the record of proceedings it is noted that on the 6th day of May, 2013 when the matter was mentioned in the morning Counsel for applicant in the present application was not present. The Court fixed the matter for 11:00 a.m. At 11:00 a.m. Counsel for the applicant was not present and the matter proceeded to hearing with the Court making orders for the transfer of the Milimani file to Mombasa.
On 3rd July, 2013 Counsel brought an application under certificate of urgency which application was fixed for hearing interpartes on 11th July, 2013.
It is instructive to note that no reason is given for the failure of Counsel to attend Court on the date fixed for hearing of the two applications.
There is no reason given for the delay of two months before filing of the application to set aside the Courts orders of 6th May, 2013.
The contention by Counsel Mr. Maundu that the application has been overtaken by events as the extracted order had already been served on the executive officer Milimani Law Courts has the ring of truth.
It has not been shown what irreparable damage the applicant would suffer if the prayer for setting aside is not granted.
I find that the applicant is guilty of laches. The delay in filing this application for two months is unreasonable. Equity aids the vigilant. This application has no merit and its dismissed with costs.
Ruling delivered dated and signed this 3rd day of April, 2014.
…...................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
3RD APRIL, 2014
In the presence of:-
Learned Counsel for the applicant
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Maundu
Court clerk Musundi