Kariuki t/a Direct O Auctioneers v Sheracco Savings and Credit Society Limited & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application 024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 774 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court refused urgent ex parte orders because the application was too unclear, showing courts require precision before granting one-sided relief.
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 application dated 5th March 2025 is sufficiently clear and properly presented for the court to grant the orders sought ex parte
- 2.Which Respondent, if any, is represented by Naomi Muriithi & Co and whether any Respondent is a decree-holder
- 3.Whether the discrepancies in party names and case number render the application incompetent as presently drafted
Key legal issues
#Clarity and propriety of the application before the Court
The application was too unclear - in party names, representation, case number and subject property - for ex parte orders to issue
The Court identified multiple defects: the firm on record (Naomi Muriithi & Co) was said to act for 'the Respondent' though three Respondents were named; the supporting affidavit referenced a 'defendant' who is not a party; the deponent identified himself as Applicant while the title named a different Applicant; and the case number was inconsistent. The Court therefore declined to act ex parte and directed inter partes hearing with liberty to amend.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot grant ex parte orders where the application is unclear as to parties, representation and the relief sought
Court orders
#- 1.The application shall be served upon the Intended Respondents and heard inter partes on 26th March 2025
- 2.The Intended Respondents may file and serve their responses within 7 days of service
- 3.The Applicant may make any amendments to the application to clarify the issues flagged by the Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over the application; no specific constitutional or statutory provision is invoked in the judgment
Relief refused
#The ex parte orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 5th March 2025
The application lacked clarity as to parties, representation, the decree-holder and the property to be attached, and such orders cannot be granted ex parte in those circumstances
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded 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.
The application dated 5th March 2025 is not clear to the Court.
There is no Party to the proceedings who is named as a defendant.
The orders sought cannot be granted ex parte, with this lack of clarity.
The application shall be served upon the Intended Respondents, and heard inter partes, on 26th March 2025.
The Applicant may make any amendments to the application to clarify the issues fiagged above.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment itself records an inconsistency in the case number - the application is marked No. 024 of 2024 while the Registry reference is No. E024 of 2024
Identity of the Applicant is internally inconsistent - the supporting affidavit deponent describes himself as the Applicant while the title names Geofirey I. Kariuki t/a Direct O. Auctioneers
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki t/a Direct O Auctioneers v Sheracco Savings and Credit Society Limited & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application 024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). No. E024 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/774/eng@2025-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.