SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mohamed Munye Omar v Shee Athman Shee (Civil Appeal 129 of 2013) [2015] KEHC 6399 (KLR) (5 March 2015) (Judgment)

[2015] KEHC 6399 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6399
Citation
[2015] KEHC 6399 (KLR)
Decided
5 March 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from an ex parte judgmentCoramMARY KASANGO
Holding

The ex parte judgment is set aside, and the case is referred back to the Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing by another Magistrate.

Facts

Appellant Mohamed Munye Omar was sued by his landlord, Respondent Shee Athman Shee, for alleged rent arrears. The case was heard ex parte as Appellant was not present.

Issues

  1. Was there an error in relying on Order 19 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
  2. What are the effects of a defective Memorandum of Appearance?
  3. Was there merit in Appellant's application to set aside the ex parte judgment?

Reasoning

The court found that there was no evidence of service by registered post, and the process server's report was not sufficient. The ex parte judgment was irregular.

Outcome

Appeal successful

Orders

  • Ruling in Mombasa CMCC No. 121 of 2012 set aside ex debito justitiae
  • Case referred back to the Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing by another Magistrate
  • Appellant to file another Memorandum of Appearance showing his correct address of service within 21 days

Remedies

  • Setting aside the ex parte judgment

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Order 6 Rule 6 (2)
Cases cited (1)
  • PETER GICHUKI KING’ARA v INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION & 2 OTHERS [2014]
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case