Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2017] KEELC 1737 (KLR)

Elizabeth Wambui Kiragu v Ndirangu Macharia [2017] KEELC 1737 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 September 2017
2,205 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court reopened a land case missed by an absent defendant, but made him pay costs and prove his case within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 18th July 2016 seeking to set aside, review and/or vary orders made on 21st June 2016, when the matter proceeded in the Defendant's absence at the defence hearing stage and the Plaintiff was directed to file written submissions ahead of judgment. The Defendant's advocate, Wakahu Mbugua, explained that he suffered a knee injury on 20th June 2016, was given two days off, and that the advocate instructed to hold his brief failed to attend in time; witness summons for the Land Registrar had been taken out. The Plaintiff opposed, pointing to the Defendant's earlier non-attendance and adjournments on 20th July 2015, 8th October 2015 and 12th October 2015, and alleged the application was intended to delay the suit over ownership of land parcel Ruiru Kiu Block 2/2820. The court held that Order 10 Rule 11 did not apply since the Defendant had appeared and filed a defence; the correct provisions were Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 15, read with Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. Finding the explanation satisfactory but mindful of the Defendant's history of adjournments, and noting that without the Defendant's evidence the competing titles could not be resolved as envisaged in the interlocutory ruling of 7th March 2013, the court allowed the application on conditions: payment of adjournment fees and costs, costs of the application, throw away costs of Kshs.10,000/= to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant to avail his evidence within 30 days with no further adjournments, failing which the orders of 21st June 2016 would prevail.

Key legal issues

#
01

Correct procedural basis for setting aside the orders of 21st June 2016

Holding

Order 10 Rule 11 was inapplicable because the Defendant had appeared and filed a defence; the correct provision was Order 12 Rule 7, supplemented by Order 51 Rule 15 since the order was made exparte.

Reasoning

The court distinguished between default judgment under Order 10 (non-appearance/default of defence) and orders made when a party who has appeared fails to attend a hearing. Because the Defendant had appeared and filed his defence but failed to attend the defence hearing, Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 15 were the appropriate bases for setting aside.

p. 3
02

Whether the advocate's illness and failure of holding brief justified setting aside the orders

Holding

The explanation was found satisfactory, but because of the Defendant's history of adjournments, the setting aside was granted only on stringent conditions including costs and a 30-day timeline.

Reasoning

The court accepted the advocate's medical explanation but weighed it against the Defendant's repeated non-attendance and adjournments. Balancing the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B, the court allowed the application conditionally to preserve the prospect of a full hearing on the competing titles, as envisaged in the ruling of 7th March 2013.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has discretion to set aside orders issued upon non-attendance of a defendant, but the discretion must be exercised judicially and upon such terms as may be just.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant to pay all the adjournment fees and costs to the Plaintiff as earlier directed by the Court on 20th July 2015 and 12th November 2015
  2. 2.The Defendant to pay costs of this application to the Plaintiff
  3. 3.The Plaintiff is entitled to throw away costs of Kshs.10,000/=
  4. 4.The Defendant to avail his evidence within the next 30 days, with no adjournment whatsoever on the instance of the Defendant
  5. 5.Failure to adhere to the stated conditions, the orders of 21st June 2016 will prevail

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 10 Rule 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 12 Rule 2(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 12 Rule 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A

Cases cited (5)

  • Tana & Athi River Development Authority Vs Jeremiah Kimogho Mwakio & 3 Others
    Civil Appeal No.41 of 2014
  • Belinda Murai & 9 Others Vs Amos Wainana
    (1979) eKLR
  • Aberdare Cheese Factory Ltd & Another Vs Oriental Commercial Bank
    No.258 of 2004, KLR
  • Cosmas Safari Chula & 134 Others Vs Bryan Daniel Mc Cleary & Another
    HCCC No.97 of 2010 KLR
  • CMC Holdings Vs Nzioki
    Civil Appeal No.173 of 2004 1 KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51, Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elizabeth Wambui Kiragu v Ndirangu Macharia [2017] KEELC 1737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1737/eng@2017-09-29

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