Haji v Nairobi Power Engineers Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2190 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land court refused to undo injunction orders against a company, ruling it was properly served at its business premises.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of service on a corporation
Service was proper: documents were left at the Respondent's place of business, an employee named James was present, and photographs of the premises were uncontroverted.
The Court applied Order 5 Rule 3 CPR. Although the first-instance mode (serving a principal officer) was not achieved, the affidavit of service showed documents left at the Respondent's offices at Industrial Area, Baricho Road, with an employee named James acknowledging receipt. The Respondent confirmed having an employee named James and did not dispute the photographs of the premises, so service satisfied the rule.
Sufficient cause to set aside ex parte orders
The Respondent failed to show sufficient cause; no irreparable damage or prejudice was shown and the substantive issues remain for trial.
Relying on Shah v Mbogo, CMC Holdings v Nzioki, Lucy Bosire, Esther Wamaitha Njihia and the AG v LSK on sufficient cause, the Court held that since the Respondent was duly served, no sufficient reason existed. The draft replying affidavit raised the same issues already in the reply to the Originating Summons, resolvable at trial; the property was admitted undeveloped, so no irreparable damage.
Overriding objective
Justice favours proceeding to a hearing of the substantive adverse possession claim rather than reopening interlocutory stages.
The Court invoked Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that the overriding objective of just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution is better served by moving to the hearing. Denying a litigant a hearing is the last resort, but here the Respondent's non-appearance was not attributable to excusable mistake.
Legal principles established
#- Summons against a corporation must first be served on the secretary, director or other principal officer; failing that, it may be left at the place where the corporation carries on business.
- Setting aside an ex parte order is discretionary, intended to relieve against accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not deliberate obstruction; it requires either improper service or sufficient cause for non-appearance.
- 'Sufficient cause' must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, leaving no unexplained gaps.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 5/5/2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- 2.The ex-parte orders issued on 17/3/2025 (temporary injunction and inhibition) remain in place pending hearing of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A), Order 40 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Article 159(2)(a) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Haji v Nairobi Power Engineers Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2190 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2190/eng@2026-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.