Smith v Nakuru Auto Garage (Civil Case No. 37 of 1951)
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 held that a defendant may enter an appearance after the prescribed time has expired, provided judgment has not yet been entered, subject to costs orders. The court further held that partners sued in the firm name may enter their appearances individually on a single form; separate forms for each partner are not required under Order 29, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Outcome
Application for judgment in default dismissed; defendants permitted to defend
Facts
The plaintiff sued a partnership trading as Auto Electric Services, now Nakuru Auto Garage. The defendants entered a memorandum of appearance on 14 May 1951, but it was invalid because they appeared in the partnership name rather than individually as required by Order 29, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff applied for judgment in default of appearance on 16 May. Before judgment was entered, the defendants filed a fresh memorandum of appearance on 23 May, this time listing four individual partners on one form. The plaintiff contended this was still invalid, arguing that each partner should have filed a separate form.
Issues
- Whether a defendant may enter an appearance after the prescribed time has expired but before judgment is entered.
- Whether partners sued in the firm name may enter their appearances on one form or whether separate forms are required for each partner.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Respondents to file their defence within 15 days.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (1)
- Fisher Simmons & Rodway (E.A.) Ltd v H. A. Allidina Visram (14 K.L.R. 93)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.