REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2012 GEORGE M. NDIRANGU .............................. APPELLANT VERSUS KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY ....... 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF PENSION ................. 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTIONS This matter was coming up for ruling on 7/03/2014, however the same was not delivered as I was away on official engagements in Nairobi. I was at the verge of writing the ruling when I noted a few omissions – which in my view would result in an unfair outcome without giving weight to the substantive issue. I find that no proper service was effected on the Attorney General, as the return of service does not bear any stamp in acknowledgement of the service. Moreover, under section 3(2) of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, the 1st Respondent) is an independent entity capable of suing and being sued on its own name. There is no evidence that the applicant served it separately. From the aforegoing observations, I suspend delivery of ruling and direct that:1. The applicant do effect proper service on the Respondents within 7 (seven) days from today’s date. 2. The respondents do file their responses if any within seven days of service. 3. The application be fixed for hearing at the registry on PRIORITY basis. 4. The applicant do personally appear in court for examination regarding the merits of the claim and property in accordance with the provisions of Order 33 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Delivered and dated this 16th day of May, 2014 at Nakuru H.A. OMONDI JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.