AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 644 (KLR)
Manyim v Tarus (Sued in her personal capacity and as the administrator of the Estate of Kiptarus Chemwor) (Land Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 644 (KLR)
Environment and Land Court (court not expressly named; single-judge first-instance court at Kapsabet)
20 February 2025
168 words in judgment
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a plaintiff to serve a defendant through a newspaper advertisement after direct service proved impracticable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#By a notice of motion dated 4th February 2025, the plaintiff/applicant, through the firm of Rotich, Langat and Partners Advocates, sought leave to serve the defendant with summons by substituted service, namely by advertising the summons in one of the local circulating dailies, with costs of the application to be in the cause. Mr Moses Rotich, learned counsel for the applicant, urged the court to allow the application as prayed. The court, per George M A Ongondo J, invoked the settled principle drawn from Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) eKLR that a party must be made aware of the existence of a case so as to enable that party to respond to it or not. Observing that in the circumstances the respondent (the defendant) deserved to be served to enable a response, if any, the court found that the application had merit. The court allowed the application and granted leave to serve the defendant through substituted service by advertising the summons in one of the local circulating dailies, with the costs of the application to be in the cause. The judgment was dated and delivered at Kapsabet on 20th February 2025, with Rotich appearing for the plaintiff.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether substituted service by newspaper advertisement is warranted
Holding
The application for leave to serve by substituted service was allowed because the Defendant deserved to be served to enable a response
Reasoning
The court applied the principle in Ogada-vs-Mollin that a party must be made aware of proceedings to respond or elect not to. Noting that the respondent deserved to be served so as to file a response if any, the court found the notice of motion dated 4th February 2025 merited and allowed it as prayed.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- A party must be made aware of the existence of a case to enable that party to respond to it or not
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the Defendant through substituted service by advertising the Summons in one of the local circulating dailies
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court to regulate service of process (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manyim v Tarus (Sued in her personal capacity and as the administrator of the Estate of Kiptarus Chemwor) (Land Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 644 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/644/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.