[2015] KEELRC 524 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 524 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any reasonable or credible explanation for not filing a Replying Affidavit or ensuring representation at the hearing. The absence of an affidavit from the Clerk and the lack of clarity on why the Replying Affidavit was to be filed on the morning of the hearing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 524 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Kaloki & 13 Others; Respondent: Sea Front Entertainment Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 55 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimants
Legal Topics
Personal Liability of Directors, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Unfair Termination, Enforcement of Decree
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Personal Liability of Directors Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Unfair Termination Enforcement of Decree

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Kaloki & 13 Others

Applicant

Sea Front Entertainment Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file a Replying Affidavit and attend the hearing of the Claimants' application.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte orders holding the Respondent's Directors personally liable for the decree should be set aside and the application heard afresh.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to deliberate avoidance of satisfying the court's decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any reasonable or credible explanation for not filing a Replying Affidavit or ensuring representation at the hearing. The absence of an affidavit from the Clerk and the lack of clarity on why the Replying Affidavit was to be filed on the morning of the hearing indicated a lack of diligence and good faith. The court concluded that the Respondent's application was a continuation of its resistance to satisfy the decree and amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte orders was rejected, and the Directors remained personally liable for the satisfaction of the decree in favour of the Claimants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimants

Orders

  • The application dated 17th March 2015 is rejected with costs to the Claimants.
  • The ruling of 10th March 2015 holding the Respondent's Directors personally liable for the decree remains in force.