Nakibinge and 2 Others v Arise and Shine International Outreach Ministries Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 906 of 2022)
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
The court partially allowed the application for extension of time to serve summons but declined to grant substituted service. Where the respondent's counsel had filed a notice of instructions providing an address for service, the applicants failed to demonstrate that ordinary service was impossible. The court granted leave to effect ordinary service through the respondent's counsel in the interest of justice.
Outcome
Leave granted for ordinary service through counsel; substituted service refused
Facts
The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 479 of 2022 on 11 February 2022 and summons to file a defence issued on 15 February 2022. The process server received the summons on 20 February 2022 and successfully served the 1st and 3rd defendants but failed to locate the respondent company, its directors or secretary. The summons should have been served by 8 March 2022, and an application for extension should have been filed by 22 March 2022. The instant application was filed on 20 May 2022, over a month late. On the same day the application was filed, a letter dated 17 March 2022 from the respondent's counsel was uploaded to the system, indicating they had instructions to represent the respondent and providing an address for service. The applicants subsequently filed documents in the main suit and instructed new counsel, demonstrating awareness of the respondent's legal representation.
Issues
- Whether the application merits the grant of orders to extend time for service of summons to file a defence to the plaint in Civil Suit No. 479 of 2022 and for fresh summons to issue.
- Whether substituted service should be granted where ordinary service has not been shown to be impossible.
Orders
- Application allowed to the extent that leave is granted to effect ordinary service to the respondent through his counsel.
- Application for substituted service dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.