Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment extract (ELC suit, Kajiado; Originating Summons filed 2012)· [2019] KEELC 443 (KLR)

Michael ole Dikirr v Tananko ole Kwena & 3 others [2019] KEELC 443 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
25 November 2019
1,712 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kajiado court refused to undo a default land judgment because the defendants waited too long, didn't prove they were never served, and never showed a real defence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendants in a land suit in which the Plaintiff, Michael Ole Dikirr, obtained an ex parte judgment on 7th February 2018 in an adverse possession claim over parcel Kajiado/Olchoro Onyore/746, brought a Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2018 under the Civil Procedure Act and Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking a stay of execution and the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and consequential orders. The Defendants, led by the 1st Defendant Tananko Ole Kwenia, denied that they were ever served with summons and asserted they were registered proprietors who had purchased the land on 27th May 2010, contending the Plaintiff's adverse possession claim was false and misconceived. The Plaintiff opposed, relying on a process server's affidavit of service sworn on 4th July 2012 and asserting continuous, exclusive possession since 1981. Justice Christine Ochieng framed a single issue: whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside. Relying on Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services, Shadrack Arap Baiywo v Bodi Bach and K-Rep Bank v Segment Distributors, the court held that the affidavit of service raised a presumption of service which the Defendants failed to displace, having never cross-examined the process server; that no draft Statement of Defence was exhibited to demonstrate triable issues; and that the application was brought after unexplained delay and after the Plaintiff had executed the decree. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte judgment of 7th February 2018 should be set aside under Order 10 rule 11

Holding

No. The Defendants were duly served per the affidavit of service, which they never tested by cross-examining the process server; the application was brought after unexplained delay and without a draft Statement of Defence raising triable issues; the application was dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

Order 10 rule 11 confers discretion to set aside a judgment on terms as are just. Following the Court of Appeal in Shadrack Arap Baiywo v Bodi Bach, the process server's affidavit raised a presumption of service which the Defendants failed to displace, having never sought leave to cross-examine him. Following K-Rep Bank v Segment Distributors, the absence of an exhibited draft defence meant no triable issues were demonstrated. Delay was unexplained and the Plaintiff had already executed the decree. The court associated itself with the cited decisions and dismissed the motion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • There is a presumption of service as stated in the process server's affidavit and the burden lies on the party questioning it to show the return is incorrect; denial of service warrants cross-examination of the process server.
  • The court's discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment is wide but must be exercised justly, and a regular judgment will not usually be set aside unless there is a defence raising a triable issue.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 11th June, 2018 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 11

Cases cited (14)

  • Wachira Karani V Bildad Wachira
    (2016) eKLR
  • Yamko Yadpaz Industries Limited V Kalka Flowers Limited
    (2013) eKLR
  • James Wanyoike & 2 Others V CMC Motors Group Limited & 4 others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kodak Kenya Limited V Edward Kamau Ndungi T/A Edkan Photo Studio
    (2005) eKLR
  • Shadrack Arap Baiywo V Bodi Bach
    (1987) eKLR
  • Kenya Orient Insurance Limited V Cargo Stars Limited & 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Stephen Wanganga Njoroge V Stanley Ngugi Njoroge & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kingsway Tyres & Automart Ltd V Rafiki Enterprises Ltd
    (1996) eKLR
  • K-Rep Bank Limited V Segment Distributors Limited
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kenneth K. Mwangi V City County of Nairobi & 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Sccoby Enterprises Ltd V Kisii County Assembly Service Board
    (2016) eKLR
  • Derby Registrars Limited V Kenya National Assurance Co. 2001 Ltd
    (2019) eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arab Korir Salat V Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Patel vs E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A & 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 50 rule 1 and Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Michael ole Dikirr v Tananko ole Kwena & 3 others [2019] KEELC 443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment extract (ELC suit, Kajiado; Originating Summons filed 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/443/eng@2019-11-25

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