Calvary Chapel Outreach Ministries v Acheing Veronica (Miscellaneous Application 1989 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Court held that there was sufficient cause to enlarge time for filing a defence where summons were left with church members at the applicant's premises rather than with authorised officers, and the applicant acted promptly upon learning of the suit. Service was ineffective as it did not produce the intended result of making the applicant aware in time to file defence.
Outcome
Time enlarged; applicant to file defence within 15 days
Facts
Calvary Chapel Outreach Ministries filed an application to enlarge time for filing a written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 546 of 2023. The applicant's chairperson deponed that court summons were left with church members at the applicant's cafe on 20 August 2023, who informed the process server that the organisation's leaders and board trustees were not present. The chairperson learned of the case on 20 August 2023 when a church member informed him. A board meeting was held on 22 August 2023 at which the decision was taken to defend the suit and hire lawyers. The lawyers advised that time for filing defence had lapsed. This application was filed on 24 August 2023. The respondent did not appear at the hearing and filed no affidavit in reply.
Issues
- Whether there is sufficient cause to enlarge time within which to file a written statement of defence
Orders
- Application granted.
- Time for filing written statement of defence enlarged.
- Applicant directed to file its defence within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (5)
- Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Engodi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
- Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] KLR
- Rehmat Khan Kherdin & Sons Ltd & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Civil Case No. 266 of 1996)
- Parimal Vs Veena Civil Appeal No.467 of 2011
- Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.