Aaron Kiplangat Kamoing v Wilson Koitaba & Joel Kibet Koech [2014] KEHC 47 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

CIVIL SUIT NO.167 OF 2008 (OS)

IN THE MATTER OF PLOT NO.20 MEASURING 40

ACRES IN LAND REFERENCE NO.548 KERINGET, MOLO, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS LAND TITLE NUMBER OLENGURUONE/KERINGET BLOCK 1/20

BETWEEN

AARON KIPLANGAT KAMOING.............................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

MAJOR WILSON KOITABA ……….......1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

JOEL KIBET KOECH……………............2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

RULING

The  application dated 22/11/2012  is made pursuant to provisions of Order V Rule  17  Civil Procedure Rules, and seeks that  leave be granted  to the  plaintiff  to  effect service of summons upon  the  2nd Defendant/Respondent, by  way  of substituted  service through an advertisement in ANY of the  local  daily  newspapers

This is  because all  efforts by the  plaintiff to  serve the  2nd defendant with the  amended originating summons dated 18th  November 2009  have  not   been  successful.   The plaintiff has not   been able to establish the whereabouts of the 2nd defendant's place of business or residence.

In the supporting   affidavit sworn by   the   plaintiff, he explains that he filed suit in the year 2008, in respect of land No.Olenguruone/Keringet/Block l/20 against the 1st defendant. After institution of the suit, he got to learn that the 1st defendant had transferred the same parcel of land to one JOELKIBET KOECH as evidenced by a copy of the search certificate.   So  he  enjoined the  said  JOELas the  2nd defendant in  the  suit on  19th  November 2009 by  amending the  originating summons,  upon  obtaining leave  of court to do so.

The plaintiff has been unable to trace the 2nd defendant.

No affidavit demonstrating attempts at service on the 2nd defendant has been annexed.   I think this is easy to understand, without an address of any sort to give a hint as to where  to  physically find  the  2nd defendant,  then attempts at  personal service would  be  only  chasing after the  wind.  I make this observation fully aware that Order V Rule 9(1) provides that:-

"Wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person….."

I am satisfied that, given  the   scenario  obtaining  here, with  almost zero  information on  where  to  locate the  2nd defendant,       the application  is  merited,    and  leave  is granted   to the    plaintiff  to   effect    service   on   the  2nd defendant by  way  of  advertisement once  in  either The  Daily  Nation  Newspaper  or  The   Standard  Newspaper, once  on  a week  day.

The costs of the application shall be in cause.

Delivered and dated this 25th day of July, 2014 at Nakuru.

H.A. OMONDI

JUDGE

N/A for parties