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 judgment (Eldoret Environment and Land Court suit)· [2019] KEELC 498 (KLR)

Peter Wafula Khaemba v Mary Chelimo Sirima & 6 others [2019] KEELC 498 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
20 November 2019
1,467 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Eldoret Environment and Land Court refused to overturn a two-year-old land judgment because the defendant gave no credible explanation for her delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M. A. Odeny J of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret, delivered on 20th November 2019, determined an application dated 8th July 2019 by the 1st defendant seeking stay of execution of the judgment, decree and consequential orders issued in the suit, setting aside of the judgment delivered on 29th September 2017, and leave to file a defence out of time. The applicant claimed she was never served with summons and only learned of the case on 4th July 2019 when informed of imminent eviction. Her counsel relied on the established tests for setting aside ex-parte judgment: a defence on the merits, absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, and explanation for delay, citing James Wanyoike v CMC Motors, Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services and Farmers Choice v Wasonga. The respondent submitted that the defendants were served with summons in the presence of the Assistant Chief of Ngenyilel sub-location and with the hearing notice, as confirmed by affidavits of service, and chose to ignore the suit. The court framed three issues: the threshold for setting aside judgment, whether to exercise discretion in the applicant's favour, and whether she was served. The court found service proved on the affidavits, noted the defence need only raise a bona fide triable issue, but held that setting aside default judgment is an equitable remedy exercisable judiciously. The applicant offered no explanation for the more than two-year delay, and her claim of late knowledge of the proceedings was disbelieved given her admitted occupation of the land. The application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant was served with summons and hearing notice

Holding

The court found from the affidavits of service that the applicant was served with summons to enter appearance and with the hearing notice for formal proof

Reasoning

The court perused the affidavit of service on record and found clear evidence of service of summons and of the hearing notice for the formal proof hearing of 18th September 2017. The applicant's claim that she only learned of the case on 4th July 2019 was disbelieved, given she admitted occupation of the suit land and subsequent orders had been granted in 2019, making the explanation implausible.

p. 2
02

Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the default judgment

Holding

The court declined to set aside the judgment because there was no explanation for the delay of over two years in bringing the application

Reasoning

The court applied the principles in Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuka Mugiria and Phillip Kiptoo Chemwolo & Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd v Augustine Kubende, and the test of defence on merits, prejudice and delay in Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd. Although the applicant claimed triable issues over 5.2 acres of LR Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel/76, the absence of any explanation for the two-year delay and the disbelieved claim of ignorance of the proceedings led the court to refuse the discretionary relief.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Setting aside a default judgment is not a right but an equitable remedy available at the court's discretion
  • A defence need only raise a bona fide triable issue, not one that must succeed, for a default judgment to be set aside
  • Even where service of summons is valid, judgment will be set aside if the defence raises triable issues
  • The discretion to set aside default judgment must be exercised judiciously, considering the defence, prejudice to the plaintiff and explanation for delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 8th July 2019 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder IXA Rule 10 (old rules)

Cases cited (7)

  • James Wanyoike & 2 others vs CMC Motors Group Ltd & 4 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Patel vs E.A Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
  • Farmers Choice Company vs Dorleen Anyango Wasonga & Another
    Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2018 [2015] eKLR
  • Olympic Escort International Co. Ltd. & 2 Others vs Parminder Singh Sandhu & Another
    [2009] eKLR
  • Tree Shade Motors Ltd vs DT Dobie & Anor
    [1995-1998] 1EA 324
  • Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuka Mugiria
    [1983] eKLR
  • Phillip Kiptoo Chemwolo & Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd v Augustine Kubende
    (1982-88) KAR 1036
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (inherent discretionary jurisdiction to set aside interlocutory judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Wafula Khaemba v Mary Chelimo Sirima & 6 others [2019] KEELC 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (Eldoret Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/498/eng@2019-11-20

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