1. The application before court dated 2nd April, 2024 is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a review of this court’s ruling of 13th March, 2024. It is brought under the provisions of order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant’s case is that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, being that the ruling overlooked the presence of service on the e-filing platform.
2. The court notes that despite the directions of 10th April, 2024, the respondent is yet to respond to the application for review. The applicants have provided evidence of service vide the affidavit of service sworn on 11th April, 2024. Be that as it may, it is clear from the ruling of this court that the same was determined in favour of the defendant apparently due to lack of proof of service.
3. The applicants have referred this court to the affidavit of service dated and filed on the e-filing platform on 27th February, 2023. The same shows a printout of service on 24th February, 2023 through the email address: info@tunasco.com.
4. The court notes that the defendant confirmed that indeed it had received a mention notice and request for judgment through the same email info@tunasco.com confirming that indeed the said email belongs to the defendant.
5. On this background, I am therefore satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the orders sought, for review of the ruling, in light of the inadvertent omission by the court in recognition of the evidence of service. To that extent, the finding by this court that there was no proper service in the ruling of 13th March, 2024 is hereby set aside. The preliminary objection raised by the defendant is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
6. The court notes that to date the defendants are yet to file a defense in this matter. Accordingly, interlocutory judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint dated 24th January 2023. The matter shall proceed to formal proof hearing on 19th September, 2024.
2. The court notes that despite the directions of 10th April, 2024, the respondent is yet to respond to the application for review. The applicants have provided evidence of service vide the affidavit of service sworn on 11th April, 2024. Be that as it may, it is clear from the ruling of this court that the same was determined in favour of the defendant apparently due to lack of proof of service.
3. The applicants have referred this court to the affidavit of service dated and filed on the e-filing platform on 27th February, 2023. The same shows a printout of service on 24th February, 2023 through the email address: info@tunasco.com.
4. The court notes that the defendant confirmed that indeed it had received a mention notice and request for judgment through the same email info@tunasco.com confirming that indeed the said email belongs to the defendant.
5. On this background, I am therefore satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the orders sought, for review of the ruling, in light of the inadvertent omission by the court in recognition of the evidence of service. To that extent, the finding by this court that there was no proper service in the ruling of 13th March, 2024 is hereby set aside. The preliminary objection raised by the defendant is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
6. The court notes that to date the defendants are yet to file a defense in this matter. Accordingly, interlocutory judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint dated 24th January 2023. The matter shall proceed to formal proof hearing on 19th September, 2024.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2024.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE