Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2019 in a suit filed 1st July 2014)· [2020] KEELC 2150 (KLR)

Galana Oil Kenya Ltd v David Gikaria & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2150 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 June 2020
1,394 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

#

A Nakuru court set aside land proceedings against a defendant served through his wife, but only after he paid KShs 50,000 and filed his defence within 14 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The first defendant moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2019 seeking setting aside of proceedings in a suit pending since 1st July 2014, in which parties' cases had been closed on 27th May 2019. He claimed he was never personally served, service having been effected through his wife, Violet Nzinza, with whom he was allegedly living apart under a judicial separation cause in which the plaintiff's advocates had acted for her. The plaintiff opposed, annexing the process server's affidavit confirming service, and noting the separation cause had been terminated upon reconciliation. The second and third defendants did not participate. The court applied the Mbogoh v Shah principles as restated in James Kanyiita Nderitu, distinguishing regular from irregular default. It found the applicant had not specifically deposed that he was not served, had failed to make full and frank disclosure regarding the separation cause, and that service on an adult family member residing with the defendant was permissible under Order 5 rule 12, the applicant being a member of parliament frequently away from home. Service being regular, setting aside was discretionary. Since judgment date had not been set, justice required the applicant be heard, but on conditions: thrown away costs of KShs 50,000 payable within 14 days and filing of defence documents within 14 days, failing which the application would stand dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. Orders issued on 11th June 2020 by D. O. Ohungo, J, delivery being remote under the COVID-19 Practice Directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether service on the first defendant through his wife was valid

Holding

Service on the wife was valid under Order 5 rule 12, and the applicant was served with summons and hearing notices

Reasoning

The court found the applicant did not specifically depose that he was not served and had not made full and frank disclosure about the judicial separation cause, which he annexed without showing its current status. As an MP shuttling between constituency and National Assembly, service on an adult family member residing with him was permissible under Order 5 rule 12. The court therefore treated the default as regular, engaging its discretion rather than setting aside as of right.

p. 2
02

Whether the proceedings should be set aside

Holding

Yes, conditionally, since judgment date had not been set and justice required the applicant be heard, with prejudice to the plaintiff compensated by thrown away costs

Reasoning

The court applied the Mbogoh v Shah principles as restated in Kanyiita Nderitu, holding that where service was regular the setting aside is discretionary. Noting the application was made before judgment date was fixed, the court prioritised hearing the applicant on the merits but conditioned the setting aside on thrown away costs and timely filing of defence documents, with default dismissing the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a default judgment is regularly entered after due service, the court has an unfettered discretion whether to set it aside, considering the reason for default, delay, triable issues and prejudice
  • An irregularly entered default judgment (no service) must be set aside as of right, without consideration of delay or triable issues

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proceedings herein are set aside
  2. 2.The first defendant shall pay to the plaintiff thrown away costs of KShs 50,000 within 14 days of delivery of the ruling
  3. 3.The first defendant to file and serve statement of defence, list and bundle of documents, list of witnesses and witness statements within 14 days
  4. 4.In default of compliance with any of the conditions, Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2019 shall stand dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 rule 12

Cases cited (5)

  • Mbogoh & Another v. Shah
    [1968] EA 93
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Patel v. E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    (1975) EA 75
  • Chemwolo & Another v. Kubende
    [1986] KLR 492
  • CMC Holdings v. Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to set aside proceedings/judgment under Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Galana Oil Kenya Ltd v David Gikaria & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2019 in a suit filed 1st July 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2150/eng@2020-06-11

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