Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text provided (Machakos ELC suit filed 2nd March 2015)· [2017] KEELC 974 (KLR)

Francis Arithi Mworia v Principal Secretary Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development & 3 others [2017] KEELC 974 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 November 2017
557 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court let late defendants file their defence because no judgment existed and the landowner showed no prejudice from the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (O.A. Angote J) on the Defendants' application dated 22nd March 2017 seeking to set aside the court's orders and directions issued on 24th November 2016 and for leave to file their Defence. The Defendants' counsel explained that he was unaware the application of 3rd August 2016 (for entry of judgment) was slated for hearing on 24th November 2016, as he was before Okong'o J in Nairobi ELC No. 537 of 2008, and that he only later discovered the Defence had not been filed. Counsel also relied on Machakos High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 356 of 2009, in which the court reportedly found the Respondents had no claim over the suit land. The Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the Defendants entered appearance two years after service, that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that he is the registered proprietor of L.R. Nos. 21990 and 21991. The court found that although the suit was filed on 2nd March 2015, no Defence was filed within the fourteen days required by Order 7 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; however, the Deputy Registrar had declined to enter default judgment and had instead directed the matter to hearing, so there was no judgment to set aside. The draft Defence showed the suit land was set aside for public purpose, and the Plaintiff showed no prejudice. The court allowed the application, set aside its proceedings of 20th March 2017 and 24th November 2016, directed the Defendants to file and serve their Defence within fourteen days, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of a judgment capable of being set aside

Holding

There was no judgment to set aside because the Deputy Registrar had declined to enter default judgment and had directed the matter to hearing

Reasoning

The Defendants sought setting aside of a judgment, but perusal of the court file showed the Deputy Registrar declined to enter default judgment and instead directed the matter be set down for hearing. The court therefore reframed the relief: what could be set aside were its own proceedings and directions of 20th March 2017 and 24th November 2016, not a judgment.

p. 2
02

Leave to file Defence out of time

Holding

Leave granted; the draft Defence raised a triable issue (that the suit land was set aside for public purpose) and no prejudice to the Plaintiff was shown

Reasoning

The court noted the suit was filed on 2nd March 2015 but no Defence was filed within fourteen days under Order 7 Rule 1. Counsel explained delay partly by the absence of the court file. The draft Defence disclosed that the suit land was set aside for public purpose, a triable issue. Balancing the parties' positions and the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the court prioritised having the suit heard on the merits.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where no default judgment has been entered, there is no judgment for the court to set aside
  • A defendant should ordinarily be allowed to file a defence out of time where the plaintiff has not demonstrated prejudice and public interest favours the suit being heard on the merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proceedings of the court of 20th March, 2016 and 24th November, 2016 be and are hereby set aside
  2. 2.The Defendants to file and serve their Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Ruling
  3. 3.Each party to bear his/its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 7 Rule 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to set aside its own proceedings and to extend time for filing a Defence under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Arithi Mworia v Principal Secretary Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development & 3 others [2017] KEELC 974 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment text provided (Machakos ELC suit filed 2nd March 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/974/eng@2017-11-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.