Oketch v Great Oak Villas Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application E149 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 19255 (KLR) (Civ) (18 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19255 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E149 OF 2021 F GIKONYO, J DECEMBER 18, 2025 BETWEEN TOM ONYANGO OKETCH ..................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND GREAT OAK VILLAS LIMITED ................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT NANCHANG FOREIGN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED .... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING Review 1. Before me is the Notice of Motion application dated 16.12.24 expressed to be brought under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in which the applicant is seeking for reconstruction of court file. 2. The applicant also sought for the proceedings and ruling delivered by Muigai J on 11.5.2021 to be retrieved. 3. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the motion as well as in the supporting affidavit sworn by Tom Onyango Oketch. The grounds were augmented in the submissions filed herein. 4. Primarily, the applicant stated that this file is missing. Thus, he cannot execute on a ruling delivered in his favour on 11.5.2021 by Muigai J. He stated that frantic efforts were made to trace the file to no avail. He claimed the procedure set out in the Registry Manual and expounded in case law was followed. Abdul Karim Omar vs. Stephen Ngumbau Kithuka [2017] eKLR. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19255/eng@2025-12-18 1
page 1 of 3
5. He also stated that the respondent would not suffer any prejudice by the reconstruction of this file. Mary Akomba Asiebela vs. Elizabeth Mujisa [2021] eKLR. In fact, the applicant mentioned that the respondents’ application for stay of the said ruling was dismissed because they had not annexed the ruling or the order made on 11.5.2021. 6. Accordingly, the applicant beseeched the court to allow the application. 7. The application was opposed. The respondents argued that the applicant has not followed the procedure laid down in the Registry Manual especially pages 33-34, paragraph 4-6. They stated that the sanctity of procedure ought to be upheld for the said procedure serves to guarantee integrity of court documents. Mwambegu vs. Hinzano [2025] KEHC 2366 (KLR), 7.2.25, (Ruling). 8. According to the respondents, no certificate of missing file has been issued. Therefore, there is no clear indication borne out of the laid down procedure that the file cannot be traced. Mbira vs. Makau [2024] KEELC 5413 (KLR), 9.7.24, Ruling. 9. They urged the court to dismiss the application. Analysis and Determination 10. The issue at hand is: whether reconstruction of the file should be ordered. 11. The applicant stated that frantic efforts were made to trace the file in vain. Yet, he has a ruling in his favour which he cannot execute because the court file is missing. 12. The respondents accused the applicant for inaction and not following through the laid down procedure in the tracing of the court file. 13. It is on record that the respondents’ application for stay of the ruling in question was dismissed for neither the ruling nor the order made on 11.5.2021 was annexed. 14. Considerable period of time has passed by and the original file has not been made available to the parties. In the circumstances of this case, it is only fair and just that it be reconstructed. But the exercise to involve both sides in order to guard the integrity of the documents. The DR to examine the documents to be presented by the parties or retrieved from lawful sources. The DR to establish whether the ruling had been sent to Kenyalaw and obtain a copy thereof. The exercise to take 30 days. If the original file be found, communication thereto be made to the parties promptly and be guided by the Registry Manual procedures. Conclusion and orders 15. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms stated above. No order as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 18.12.25 -----------------F. GIKONYO M JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Njeri for Ms. Wacuka for 2nd Respondent Oketch for Applicant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19255/eng@2025-12-18 2
page 2 of 3
CA- Kinyua https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19255/eng@2025-12-18 3
page 3 of 3