Pampa Grill Limited & another v North Lake Limited & another

The applicant's director admitted service of summons and appointment of two law firms. Previous rulings found the advocates on record were duly served with pleadings and hearing notices. Under the James Kanyiita Nderitu principles, an irregular judgment is one entered against a defendant not served; that was not this case, so the court's discretion under Order 10 Rule 11 applies rather than setting aside as of right.

The application was filed six months after judgment and five months after the applicant learned of it. The court found no evidence of a retainer dispute, noting the previous firm ceased acting because the applicant withdrew instructions and took its file. The applicant, having defended an interlocutory injunction application, could not credibly claim it needed five months to gather evidence.

The applicant did not show on a prima facie basis that the eviction was lawful or that the lower court order was lawful. It did not establish that the goods the administrator intended to sell were the same as the claimed stolen or destroyed items, nor that the 2nd plaintiff's suit lacked the administrator's authorisation.

The plaintiffs were evicted five years ago and obtained judgment after trial; setting it aside would require a fresh hearing at added cost and further delay. The applicant had its opportunity to defend itself and did not use it, so it has only itself to blame.