Awadhi Ido Kijass vs Mayfair Investment Limited, civil application no 281/17 of 2017.

This case Provide for remedy when court Delivered a judgement without notice to the parties and absense of the parties.

Read the facts of the case and holding and then tou can download full text afte the facts.

Be it as it may, that judgment was against the applicant who, though 

aggrieved, could not challenge it because, according to him, there was no valid judgment from which he could have taken up an appeal. It is for the above reason, the applicant sought revision on the grounds set out in the notice of motion the host of which are not relevant and not worth our  Consideration for the purpose of this ruling. The only ground which is 

relevant is ground one which runs:

“1. The judgment o f the court was never pronounced to the parties in terms o f Order XX Rule 1 o f the Civii Procedure Code, but was instead supplied to persons who were not parties to the suit on 26/01/2017”.

As rightly submitted by Mr. Mafuru supported by Mr. Shayo, an aggrieved party could not have validly challenged the purported judgment on appeal and hence the resort to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court under section 4(3) of the AJA in line with the applicant’s averment in para 6 of his founding affidavit. In the upshot, we are inclined to agree with the learned advocates for both parties that the purported delivery of the 

judgment was inoperative with the net effect that no valid judgment and decree came into existence.

Having so found, we are satisfied that the circumstances of this 

application compel us to exercise the Court’s power vested under section 

4(3) of the AJA by revising the proceedings of the High Court for 29th November, 2015 by nullifying them as we hereby do. After nullifying the said proceedings, the position remaining will be that preceding the purported delivery of the impugned judgment.

 Arising from the foregoing,we direct the High Court to pronounce the judgment reserved on notice by the order made on 9th November 2015 according to the dictates of Order XX rule 1 of the CPC.

In the event, the application is hereby sustained on the strength of ground one in the notice of motion. As the respondent waived her costs, we make no order as to costs.