Jedrom Building and Civil Engineering Limited v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2017] KEELC 116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a company Sh4 million plus monthly income against a county government that demolished its property, ignored court orders, and never filed a defence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to summary judgment where no defence is filed to the amended plaint
Since the defendant entered appearance on 16th July 2014 but filed no defence to the amended plaint, and filed no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition to the application, summary judgment was entered for the liquidated sum claimed plus loss of income.
Order 36 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 permits a plaintiff to apply for judgment where the defendant has appeared but not filed a defence in a suit for a liquidated demand. The court considered the pleadings and compliance with procedure. No defence to the amended plaint was filed and no explanation was offered. The application dated 3rd November 2014 also went unopposed, with no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition filed in compliance with Order 51 rule 14(1). The valuation of Kshs.4,000,000 was unchallenged, and the defendant's culpability for the destruction had been established in earlier contempt proceedings. The court therefore found the application merited and granted the relief sought.
Whether a contemnor who has not purged contempt may be deprived of a hearing
The court applied Hadkinson and Rose Detho: refusal to hear a contemnor is discretionary, exercised sparingly, and grounded in the rule of law; the defendant, having been fined Kshs.500,000 and refusing to pay, was not heard and the application went unopposed.
The court held that the rule of law underpins the entire constitutional dispensation, and that a party who disobeys court orders may, in the court's discretion, be refused a hearing until the impediment is removed. The defendant had been cited, heard, found in contempt, fined Kshs.500,000 with default attachment, but refused to pay. Relying on Hadkinson v Hadkinson and Rose Detho v Ratilal Automobiles Ltd, the court endorsed the position that there is no absolute bar but that refusal to hear is discretionary and justified where disobedience impedes the course of justice. The defendant was accordingly not heard.
Legal principles established
#- There is no absolute legal bar to hearing a contemnor who has not purged the contempt; whether the court will hear the contemnor is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case.
- Summary judgment under Order 36 rule 1 applies where a defendant has entered appearance but not filed a defence in suits for a liquidated demand.
Court orders
#- 1.Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the liquidated sum of Kshs.4,000,000
- 2.Loss of income of Kshs.56,000 per month till payment in full
- 3.Interest on the amounts awarded
- 4.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; summary judgment under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jedrom Building and Civil Engineering Limited v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2017] KEELC 116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/116/eng@2017-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.