https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1373
The court held that the omission of the leave order from the record of appeal was an inadvertent and excusable mistake by counsel, not a deliberate default, and since the existence of leave to appeal out of time was undisputed, sustaining the earlier judgment would elevate form over substance. That constituted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 1373 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Alex Barawa Washe; Respondent: Kilifi Plantations Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal E016 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Appeal Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["K Ocharo"]
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Counsel's Mistake, Supplementary Record of Appeal, Substantive Justice Versus Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alex Barawa Washe
Appellant
Kilifi Plantations Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Court Appeal Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application met the threshold for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2 Whether omission of the leave order from the record of appeal was an excusable mistake by counsel
- 3 Whether the court should set aside the judgment and permit filing of a supplementary record of appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the omission of the leave order from the record of appeal was an inadvertent and excusable mistake by counsel, not a deliberate default, and since the existence of leave to appeal out of time was undisputed, sustaining the earlier judgment would elevate form over substance. That constituted sufficient reason to grant review, set aside the judgment, and allow the appeal to be heard on the merits.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Judgment herein set aside
- Appeal to be considered on the merits
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Washe v Kilifi Plantations Limited (Appeal E016 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1373 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1373 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Malindi Appeal E016 of 2024 K Ocharo, J May 18, 2026 Between Alex Barawa Washe Appellant and Kilifi Plantations Limited Respondent Ruling 1.By a Notice of Motion dated 7TH March 2025, the Appellant seeks that this Court review and set aside its judgment herein. The application is expressed to be under the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and is premised on the grounds set out on the face of it and in the supporting affidavit filed contemporaneously therewith. 2.The Appellant contends that the judgment dismissed the appeal on a single ground, namely that it was filed outside the statutory period without leave of the Court. Prior to filing the appeal, they had sought and been granted leave to file an appeal out of time in Malindi Misc. Application No. E003 of 2024. However, inadvertently, the order was not included in the record of appeal by their Counsel. Counsel’s mistake ought not be visited on them. 3.The Respondent opposes the application, contending that it is misconceived, fatally defective, and an abuse of the court process. The omission cannot be cured by an application for review, particularly given that the Applicant was fully aware of the need to include the said ruling and orders in the record of appeal. Additionally, the Appellant cannot be permitted to seek to reopen the proceedings as a result of matters arising from their own negligence. 4.The Appellant’s application does not satisfy the requisite conditions for the grant of review orders. Furthermore, the Appellant has not explained sufficiently why the ruling and or order was not included in the record of appeal. Determination 5.I have carefully considered the Appellant’s application, the grounds upon which it is premised, the affidavit in support, the Respondent’s replying affidavit, and the respective submissions of the parties’ Counsel. A single issue arises for determination, namely, whether the Appellant’s application is merited. 6.There is no dispute that leave of the Court had been duly granted to file the appeal out of time. The omission to incorporate the order granting leave into the record of appeal does not, in the circumstances of the case, appear to have been deliberate. I am persuaded that the omission arose from inadvertence or an excusable mistake on the part of counsel in preparing the record. 7.It is well settled that mistakes of Counsel, though not to be encouraged, should not invariably be visited upon a litigant where the interests of justice can still be safeguarded without occasioning prejudice to the opposite party. Courts are enjoined to administer substantive justice and avoid undue reliance on procedural lapses that do not go to the root of the dispute. 8.The existence of the order granting leave is not contested. Indeed, the omission complained of relates merely to the failure to include the order in the compiled record, rather than to the absence of the leave itself. In the circumstances, sustaining a judgment founded upon such omission would elevate form over substance and defeat the broader interests of justice. 9.I am therefore satisfied that a sufficient reason has been shown to warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the Applicant. Consequently, the threshold for review has been met, and there is a proper basis for the Court to review and set aside the judgment, thereby permitting the matter to be determined on the merits. 10.By reason of the foregoing, I hereby set aside the Judgment herein. The appeal shall be considered on the merits. The Appellant is granted leave to file a supplementary record of appeal to incorporate the ruling in Malindi Misc. Application No. E003 of 2024.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application. READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026.OCHARO KEBIRAJUDGE