Manyim v Tarus (Sued in her personal capacity and as the administrator of the Estate of Kiptarus Chemwor) (Land Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 644 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a plaintiff to serve a defendant through a newspaper advertisement after direct service proved impracticable.
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 plaintiff should be granted leave to serve the Defendant with the Summons through substituted service by advertisement in a local circulating daily
Key legal issues
#Whether substituted service by newspaper advertisement is warranted
The application for leave to serve by substituted service was allowed because the Defendant deserved to be served to enable a response
The court applied the principle in Ogada-vs-Mollin that a party must be made aware of proceedings to respond or elect not to. Noting that the respondent deserved to be served so as to file a response if any, the court found the notice of motion dated 4th February 2025 merited and allowed it as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- A party must be made aware of the existence of a case to enable that party to respond to it or not
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the Defendant through substituted service by advertising the Summons in one of the local circulating dailies
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court to regulate service of process (not expressly cited in the judgment)
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 trite law that a party must be made aware of the existence of a case to enable that party to respond to it or not; see Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) eKLR.
In the premises, the application has merit. The same is hereby allowed accordingly.
Thatthe Honourable Court be pleased to grant the Applicant/Plaintifi leave to serve the Defendant through substituted service by advertising the Summons in one of the local circulating dailies.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, court name or full case title; the party names are not given, only the roles 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manyim v Tarus (Sued in her personal capacity and as the administrator of the Estate of Kiptarus Chemwor) (Land Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 644 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/644/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.