Infotech Systems Ltd v Raps U Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 545 of 2005)
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
An application to set aside a decree under Order 33 Rule 11 requires not only a reasonable excuse for non-appearance but also a demonstration of merits, meaning prospects of success in the action. The applicant must disclose facts sufficient to entitle them to defend and should simultaneously apply for leave to appear and defend. Where the applicant provides an excuse for non-appearance but fails to show entitlement to defend on the merits, the application must be dismissed.
Outcome
Application to set aside decree dismissed
Facts
The applicant sought to set aside a decree entered on 8 June 2005 after its application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The applicant's advocate mistakenly entered the wrong hearing date in his diary and communicated that wrong date to the client, resulting in their absence from court when the application came up for hearing. The managing director of the applicant company swore an affidavit explaining the mistake. The applicant did not seek leave to appear and defend in the application.
Issues
- Whether a decree entered after dismissal of an application for lack of prosecution should be set aside where counsel mistakenly entered the wrong date in his diary.
- Whether an applicant seeking to set aside a decree under Order 33 Rule 11 must show they have a good defence on the merits.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (2)
- Caltex Oil (U) Ltd v Kyobe (HCCS No. 89 of 1990)
- J. Hodge v P.E. Page (HCCS No. 75 of 1958)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.