Margaret Lihabi Ngaira v Winfrida Ngumi Charles [2022] KEELRC 718 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to undo a judgment won in absentia because the applicant offered no explanation for missing the hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside
The application fails because the applicant offered no explanation for non-attendance and the conduct shows deliberate avoidance of court hearings
The court applied the Mbogo v Shah principle on setting aside ex parte judgments but held that an applicant must at least explain non-attendance or seek an adjournment. Here the applicant only complained of short service, did not explain absence, and had a history of non-attendance and successive applications to set aside, including a prior consent setting aside of the 2015 judgment. The court found the conduct abusive of process and declined to disturb the reinstated judgment.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment is intended to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake or error
- Rules of natural justice require a tribunal or court to hear both parties before deciding a dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th November 2018 is dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court to set aside ex parte proceedings and judgment, anchored on Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya and the overriding objective
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Margaret Lihabi Ngaira v Winfrida Ngumi Charles [2022] KEELRC 718 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion dated 16th November 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/718/eng@2022-02-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.