Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Civil Case 91 of 1998 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | FIDELITY COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED v WORLDIN TOURS & TRAVEL LIMITED & AZMINA HERNANDEZ JUMA |
| Date Delivered: | 08 Nov 2002 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division) |
| Case Action: | Ruling |
| Judge(s): | John Wycliffe Mwera |
| Citation: | FIDELITY COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED v WORLDIN TOURS & TRAVEL LIMITED & another [2002] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Ougo for Plaintiff/Respondent Ahmed for Defendant/Applicant |
| Court Division: | Civil |
| Advocates: | Ougo for Plaintiff/Respondent Ahmed for Defendant/Applicant |
| Case Summary: | [RULING] Civil Practice and Procedure-summons-where the hearing notice was filed by a person who was not licensed to serve such processes at the time-validity of service
|
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 91 of 1998
FIDELITY COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED…………......……….………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WORLDIN TOURS & TRAVEL LIMITED…………….....…...……..1ST DEFENDANT
AZMINA HERNANDEZ JUMA………………………..…....………2ND DEFENDANT
Coram: J. W. Mwera J.
Ougo for Plaintiff/Respondent
Ahmed for Defendant/Applicant
RULING
The application dated 21.5.2002 seeks orders under Order 9A rule 10, Order 49 rules 1, 2 and Section 3A Civil Procedure Rules to set aside this court’s judgment which was delivered on 6.5.2002 after ex parte hearing. There was also a prayer for stay of execution of the resultant decree.
Mr. Ahmedr argued that the trial followed a hearing notice that was served by a person who was not licensed to serve such processes at the time. That the defences filed were strong. That indeed the trial went on when an application dated 25.2.2002 was pending in court and the plaintiff’s advocate then did not accordingly inform the court and that there was no banker – customer relationship binding the litigants here, giving rise to the banking and accommodation facilities claimed in the plaint.
Mr. Hira posited that if the process server was not licensed, this court should view that in the light of the replying affidavit to this application and issue a ruling.
Having heard both counsel this court is minded to and it sets aside the judgment in question.
Parties should then take course in 30 days to prepare this suit for trial and set it down for hearing at the earliest possible opportunity.
Orders delivered on 8.11.2002.
J. W. MWERA
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...