Kileu Nalotuesha Lemutu v Leonard Njau t/a Kinyanjui & Njau Advocates [2019] KEELC 483 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside an ex parte order, confirming courts prefer hearing disputes on their merits over technical wins from missed hearings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the Order of the Court issued on the 15th March, 2018 should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte order of 15th March 2018 should be set aside
The order was set aside because the defendant demonstrated a prima facie defence raising triable issues and the discretion favours determination on the merits
The defendant admitted the hearing notice was served at his office but he was handling another matter. His draft replying affidavit and annexures revealed an advocate-client relationship, legal work undertaken on the suit land involving a third party, and a Sale Agreement of 16th May 2013 confirming receipt of purchase price. These raise triable issues amounting to a prima facie defence, and justice requires all parties to present evidence and the suit to be determined on its merits.
Legal principles established
#- Under Order 12 rule 7, the court may on application set aside or vary a judgment or order entered or a suit dismissed, upon such terms as may be just
- A defence on merits means a triable issue, not a defence that must succeed
- The discretion to set aside ex parte orders exists to ensure a litigant does not suffer injustice from excusable mistake or error
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's application dated 11th April 2018 and amended on 2nd July 2018 is allowed
- 2.The Order issued on 15th March 2018 is set aside
- 3.The Defendant is directed to file and serve his replying affidavit in respect of the Originating Summons within 14 days from the date of the order
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is against the foregoing that I proceed to allow the Defendant’s application dated the 11 th April, 2018 and amended on 2nd July, 2018 and set aside the Order issued on 15th March, 2018. I further direct the Defendant to file and serve his replying affidavit in respect to the Originating Summons within 14 days from the date hereof.
From my analysis, I opine that these are triable issues and I hold that the Defendant indeed has a prima facie defence.
I find that it would be pertinent if all the parties presented their evidence before court and the suit determined on its merits.
[T]he discretion that a court of law has, in deciding whether or not to set aside ex parte order such as before us was meant to ensure that a litigant does not suffer injustice or hardship as a result of among other things an excusable mistake or error.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the movant inconsistently as Defendant, Applicant and Respondent within the same narrative
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kileu Nalotuesha Lemutu v Leonard Njau t/a Kinyanjui & Njau Advocates [2019] KEELC 483 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons at Kajiado; application dated 11th April 2018, amended 2nd July 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/483/eng@2019-12-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.