Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Appeal No. 74 of 2016 (Formerly Civil Appeal No. 480 of 2014)· [2019] KEELC 3113 (KLR)

Real Management Services Limited & another v International Partnership Services (E.A) Ltd [2019] KEELC 3113 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 May 2019
2,580 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that vague excuses like a missed diary entry will not save you from a default judgment unless backed by solid, sworn evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi against a ruling of Hon. S. Atambo (Ms) delivered on 24th October 2014 in Nairobi CMCC No. 7241 of 2013, by which the magistrate dismissed the appellants' application to set aside an ex parte judgment on admission of Kshs.500,000 entered on 11th June 2014, and to reinstate the respondent's application of 6th May 2014 for inter partes hearing. The appellants, suing through their advocate Sylvester Kibera Maina, attributed their non-attendance to an office assistant's failure to diarise the hearing date, and contended their defence raised triable issues and that they were condemned unheard. The respondent maintained the explanation was unconvincing, that personal service of the court order was regular, and that the defence consisted of admissions raising no triable issues. Komingoi J framed five issues. The court held that the 'sufficient cause' explanation was unconvincing and implausible because the office assistant allegedly responsible did not swear an affidavit; that the magistrate therefore exercised her discretion judiciously in declining to set aside the judgment; and that the statement of defence raised no triable issues. Applying the Mbogo v Shah standard, the court found no basis for appellate interference. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 9th May 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Sufficiency of explanation for failure to attend court

Holding

The appellants' explanation that an office assistant failed to diarise the matter was not convincing or plausible in the absence of an affidavit from that assistant

Reasoning

The advocate's affidavit blamed an office assistant for failing to diarise the hearing date, but the assistant did not swear an affidavit to explain the failure. Applying the 'sufficient cause' standard, the explanation left gaps and doubts, so the magistrate could not be faulted for rejecting it.

p. 3
02

Whether the magistrate exercised her discretion judiciously

Holding

Yes - the magistrate exercised her discretion judiciously in declining to set aside the ex parte judgment since no sufficient reasons were advanced

Reasoning

Guided by the Mbogo v Shah standard, the appellate court found the magistrate took into account all relevant matters and none irrelevant. Since no sufficient reasons were placed before her to justify the non-attendance, her refusal to set aside the judgment stood.

p. 4
03

Whether the defence raised triable issues

Holding

The statement of defence raised no triable issues

Reasoning

The court perused the defence and found it disclosed no triable issues; the respondent maintained it was owed money and had incurred expenses moving godowns at the appellants' request. The magistrate was therefore justified in holding the defence meritless for purposes of setting aside.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of the trial judge's discretion unless the judge misdirected himself or the decision is clearly wrong and has resulted in injustice
  • Sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful
  • The discretion to set aside ex parte judgments is intended to avoid injustice from excusable mistake, not to assist those who deliberately obstruct or delay justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Nairobi
CMCC No. 7241 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over subordinate court rulings

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Real Management Services Limited & another v International Partnership Services (E.A) Ltd [2019] KEELC 3113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Appeal No. 74 of 2016 (Formerly Civil Appeal No. 480 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3113/eng@2019-05-09

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