JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellants in this appeal challenge the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the superior court (Shields, J.) under O. IX A rule 10 Civil Procedure Rules, in which the court declined to set aside its judgment which had been entered in favour of the respondent, pursuant to an ex parte hearing of the suit.
The jurisdiction of this court to interfere with such exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by an inferior court was succinctly stated by Sir Clement De Lestang, V.P, in the often cited case of Mbogo v. Shah [1968] EA 93, thus:
“I think it is well settled that this court will not interfere with the exercise of its discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has misdirected itself or because it has acted on matters which it should not have acted or it has failed to take into consideration matters which it should have taken into consideration and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion.”
The onus was…