<p class="ql-align-center">JUDGMENT OF THE COURT</p><p>On 16^th May, 2000, Githinji J (as he then was) refused to exercise his discretion in favour of <em>M/S. Kays Investments Ltd</em> (“Kays” or <em>“the appellants”</em> ) who had applied under <em>Order IXA r 10</em> of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an interlocutory judgment entered in default of appearance on 11^th August, 1998. Dissatisfied with that ruling, Kays appealed to this Court but that appeal was struck out on a technicality on 11^th October, 2001. Undaunted by that set back, Kays sought extension of time to mount a proper appeal and their application was granted on 30^th July 2002. The appeal now before us was then filed on 19^th August, 2002 but was only reached for hearing this year. That explains the nine year sojourn of the case in the corridors of justice so far.</p><p>Although the appeal before us lays out no less than twenty one (21) grounds and learned counsel on both sides ably addressed us at length for over two days, the appeal relates to an area of law that has been thor…</p>