Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 131 of 2015 & 1201 of 2016 (Consolidated)· [2023] KEELC 22000 (KLR)

Hasgeman & Company Limited & 2 others v Mahendra G. Patel & 3 others

Environment and Land Court
23 November 2023
3,851 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court set aside its own judgment because a company was never properly served with court papers, giving it 30 days to finally defend itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Wabwoto J) determined two consolidated applications for review and setting aside of the court's judgment delivered on 27th February 2023 in consolidated ELC No. 131 of 2015 and ELC No. 1201 of 2016. Mahendra G. Patel (1st Defendant in ELC 131 of 2015) sought review on the ground of an error on the record concerning L.R. No. 20699 versus L.R. No. 20750, contending also that the suit had abated and the court lacked jurisdiction. Alpha Grain Millers Limited (2nd Defendant in ELC 1201 of 2016) sought review and setting aside on the ground that it was never served with pleadings and summons, and sought leave to file its pleadings and defend the suit. The Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the court was functus officio, that review was incompetent after a notice of appeal had been filed, that no new evidence had been discovered, and that the clerical error did not warrant review. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicants had made a case for review and setting aside of the judgment. Finding no evidence of service on Alpha Grain Millers, and noting the Plaintiffs' concession of no physical service, the court held there was no proper service and that natural justice required the 2nd Defendant be heard. The court set aside the proceedings and judgment of 27th February 2023, granted Alpha Grain Millers 30 days to file its defence, witness statements, documents and trial bundle, and ordered each party to bear its own costs of the applications. The court expressly declined to determine the remaining issues on the two applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of 27th February 2023 should be reviewed and set aside

Holding

Yes - the judgment and proceedings were set aside because Alpha Grain Millers Limited was never properly served with summons, pleadings or hearing notices

Reasoning

The court found no evidence that the 2nd Defendant was served with summons to enter appearance or subsequent notices, and the Plaintiffs conceded there was no physical service. Citing the audi alteram partem rule, the court held the 2nd Defendant was entitled to be heard, making it fair and just to set aside the judgment and allow it to file its defence.

p. 6
02

Standard for service by affixing where defendant cannot be found

Holding

The serving officer must demonstrate reasonable and due diligence, including the number of attempts made to find the defendant

Reasoning

The court interpreted Order 5 Rule 14 as requiring demonstrated effort: the affidavit of service must show the number of attempts to find the defendant and that the officer laboured to search the defendant's whereabouts before resorting to affixing service.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Service by affixing under Order 5 Rule 14 requires the serving officer to demonstrate reasonable and due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant, shown in the affidavit of service
  • A judgment entered against a party never served with summons and pleadings is liable to be set aside so that the party may be heard

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proceedings of the court and judgment delivered on 27th February, 2023 are set aside
  2. 2.The 2nd defendant in ELC No. 1201 of 2016 (Alpha Grain Millers) is granted 30 days from 23rd November 2023 to file its defence, witness statements, documents and trial bundle
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs of the applications

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 99 (slip rule)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 5 Rules 8 and 14

Cases cited (18)

  • Kisva Investments Ltd vs. Attorney General & Another
    [1996] eKLR

    Review application is incompetent once an appeal has been preferred; crucial date is filing of the review

  • Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited

    No review once intention to appeal intimated by filing a notice of appeal

  • Alpha Fine Foods Limited vs. Horeca Kenya Limited & 4 Others
    [2021]

    New evidence for review must have been discovered since the order sought to be reviewed was passed

  • Abasi Belinda vs. Frederick Kngwamu and Another
    [1963] E.A 557

    Error apparent on face of record must be patent and free from doubt; good ground of appeal may not be ground for review

  • Samvir Trustee Limited -vs- Guardian Bank Limited
    [2007] eKLR

    Stay of execution principles (cited by Plaintiffs)

  • Milcah Jeruto Tallan T/A Milcah Faith Enterprises -vs- Fina Bank Ltd & Another
    [2013] eKLR

    Stay of execution principles (cited by Plaintiffs)

  • Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman -vs- Keshavji Jivraj Shah
    [2008] eKLR

    Stay of execution principles (cited by Plaintiffs)

  • Registered Trustees, Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme -vs- Millimo, Muthomi & Co. Advocates & 2 others
    [2022] KFCA 491 (KLR)

    Stay of execution principles (cited by Plaintiffs)

  • Jason Ngumba Kagu & 2 Others -vs- Intra Africa Assurance Co. Limited
    [2014] eKLR

    Substantial loss as cornerstone of stay jurisdiction; balancing test

  • Mumby's Food Products Limited & 2 others -vs- Cooperative Merchant Bank Limited
    Civil Appeal No. 270 of 2002

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd Ndungu Njau
    [1997] eKLR

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • Timber Manufacturers and Dealers –vs- Nairobi Golf Hotels (K)
    HCCC No. 5220 of 1992

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • Batuk K. Vyas -vs- Surat Municipality
    AIR [1953] Bom 133

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • The Official Receiver and Liquidator -vs- Freight Forwarders Kenya Ltd
    [2000] eKLR

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • The Estate of the late Peter Muraya Chege (deceased)
    [2019] eKLR

    Stay of execution (cited by 1st Defendant)

  • Patel -vs- E.A Car Handling Services Ltd
    [1974]

    Court's wide discretion to set aside judgment aimed at doing justice between parties

  • Shah v. Mbogo
    [1967] EA 116

    Discretion to set aside exercised to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake

  • Mandeep Chauhan -vs- Kenyatta National Hospital & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR

    Cardinal rule of natural justice - no one shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem)

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent review and setting-aside powers under the Civil Procedure Act (Section 80) and Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Order 45, Order 5)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hasgeman & Company Limited & 2 others v Mahendra G. Patel & 3 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 131 of 2015 & 1201 of 2016 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/22000/eng@2023-11-23

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