Jeremiah Kiptum Kimaiyo & another v Rai Plywoods (K) Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. M. Kibunja
Judgment Date
October 07, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Jeremiah Kiptum Kimaiyo & another v Rai Plywoods (K) Limited [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and implications from this significant judgment.

Case Brief: Jeremiah Kiptum Kimaiyo & another v Rai Plywoods (K) Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Jeremiah Kiptum Kimaiyo & Stanlaus Mutai v. Rai Plywoods (K) Limited
- Case Number: E & L Case No. 346 of 2016 (OS)
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: 7th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. M. Kibunja
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues:
(a) Whether the Defendant has reasonably explained its failure to attend court on the 22nd of July, 2019, when the application was heard ex parte.
(b) Whether the Defendant has made a reasonable case for the ex parte proceedings and order of 22nd July, 2019, to be set aside.
(c) Whether the Plaintiffs’ Motion dated 13th May, 2019 for leave to amend pleadings should be set down for inter partes hearing.
(d) Who should bear the costs of the Motion.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved are the Plaintiffs, Jeremiah Kiptum Kimaiyo and Stanlaus Mutai, and the Defendant, Rai Plywoods (K) Limited. The Defendant filed a motion on 25th July 2019, seeking to set aside an ex parte order made on 22nd July 2019 regarding a motion filed by the Plaintiffs on 13th May 2019. The Plaintiffs’ motion was served on the Defendant's counsel on 3rd July 2019, and a hearing was scheduled for 22nd July 2019. The Defendant's counsel attended court but learned that the application had been heard in their absence. The Plaintiffs contended that they had not been served with the Defendant's reply to their motion.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through multiple stages:
- The Plaintiffs filed a motion dated 13th May 2019, which was served on the Defendant on 3rd July 2019.
- The hearing was set for 22nd July 2019, where the Plaintiffs' motion was heard ex parte as the Defendant did not attend.
- The Defendant subsequently filed a motion on 25th July 2019, seeking to set aside the ex parte order and have the original motion heard inter partes. The Plaintiffs opposed this application.
- Written submissions were filed by both parties, leading to the court's ruling on 7th October 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly Order 5 Rule 15 regarding the proof of service and Order 51 Rule 14 concerning the timing of filings before a hearing.
- Case Law: The court reviewed previous cases that emphasized the importance of proper service of documents and the need for parties to adhere to procedural rules. These cases underscored the principle that a party should not be penalized for the other party's failure to adhere to procedural norms.
- Application: The court determined that the Defendant failed to provide adequate proof of service of their response to the Plaintiffs’ motion. The court found that the Plaintiffs' motion was appropriately heard ex parte due to the lack of service of the Defendant's reply. The court also concluded that the alteration of the hearing date in the Defendant's documentation was not credible, favoring the Plaintiffs' assertion that the correct date was 22nd July 2019.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Defendant’s motion to set aside the ex parte order, ruling that the Defendant did not present a reasonable explanation for its failure to attend court. The court allowed the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend pleadings, which involved a minor change in the name of the 1st Plaintiff. The ruling emphasized adherence to procedural rules and the importance of proper service.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling. The decision was unanimous, with the presiding judge providing a clear rationale for the dismissal of the Defendant’s motion.

8. Summary:
The case concluded with the court dismissing the Defendant's application to set aside the ex parte order and allowing the Plaintiffs' motion to amend pleadings. This ruling reinforces the significance of procedural compliance in civil litigation and underscores the necessity for parties to ensure timely and proper service of court documents. The judgment serves as a reference for future cases regarding the handling of ex parte proceedings and the implications of procedural missteps.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Jeremiah-Kiptum-Kimaiyo--another-v-Rai-Plywoods-K-Limited-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1409_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries