[2016] KEELRC 643 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent had been properly served with hearing notices, as evidenced by affidavits of service and acknowledgment by its advocate. The only explanation for non-attendance was counsel's failure to diarise the hearing date, which the court deemed insufficient and not a compelling reason to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 643 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Christopher Kipsang Biwott; Respondent: Emrock Investment Tea Factory Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 554 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
- Outcome
- Respondent's application to set aside ex parte proceedings dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Ex Parte Hearing, Setting Aside Orders, Service of Process, Court Discretion
- 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
Christopher Kipsang Biwott
Claimant
Emrock Investment Tea Factory Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent has provided sufficient reason for non-attendance to warrant setting aside the ex parte proceedings.
- 2 Whether proper service of the hearing notice was effected on the Respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent had been properly served with hearing notices, as evidenced by affidavits of service and acknowledgment by its advocate. The only explanation for non-attendance was counsel's failure to diarise the hearing date, which the court deemed insufficient and not a compelling reason to exercise its discretion in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent also failed to explain its absence at the first scheduled hearing. Consequently, the court declined to set aside the ex parte proceedings, emphasizing the importance of diligence by parties and their advocates in attending court when properly notified.
Court Disposition
Respondent's application to set aside ex parte proceedings dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Orders
- The motion dated 23 March 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
- Judgment to be delivered on 11 November 2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 554 OF 2014
CHRISTOPHER KIPSANG BIWOTT CLAIMANT
v
EMROCK INVESTMENT TEA FACTORY LTD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This Cause was heard on 10 March 2016 in the absence of the Respondent and/or his legal counsel.
2. The hearing date was fixed on 12 November 2015 and the Claimant was directed to serve a hearing notice upon the Respondent.
3. Before permitting the hearing to proceed, the Court satisfied itself that a hearing notice had been served (there was an affidavit of service on record).
4. After the close of the Claimant’s case, the Court reserved judgment for 29 July 2016, but on 30 March 2016, the Respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte proceedings (hearing).
5. The Respondent’s application was urged on 6 September 2016 and is the subject of this ruling.
6. The principal reason advanced by the Respondent is that its counsel forgot to diarise the hearing date, and it was urged that there was a good defence and therefore the Respondent ought to be given the opportunity to ventilate its case.
7. The Claimant in a replying affidavit filed in Court on 19 April 2016 asserted that apart from serving a hearing notice upon the Respondent on 6 December 2015, other hearing notices had been served upon the Respondent, but it had not bothered to attend Court.
8. The Court has gone through the record.
9. The first hearing of the Cause was scheduled for 12 November 2015. The Respondent was not represented on that date though its advocate on record had been served with a hearing notice as attested to the affidavit of service by one Margaret Nambala Wafula.
10. However, the Cause could not be reached for hearing, which was rescheduled to 10 March 2016.
11. Come 10 March 2016, when the Cause was called out the Respondent and its counsel were not present and because the Claimant was ready to proceed, the Court directed the filing of an affidavit of service which was done.
12. According to the affidavit of service, the Respondent’s advocate had acknowledged service of the hearing notice.
13. Without an explanation as to why there was no representation when the hearing was first scheduled, the Court is not satisfied that the reason advanced by the Respondent for failure to attend the rescheduled hearing merits an exercise of the Court’s discretion in its favour.
14. The upshot of the foregoing is that the motion dated 23 March 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
15. Judgment will be delivered on 11 November 2016.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 30th day of September 2016.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Ms. Morande instructed by Chepkwony and Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mr. Biko instructed by S.K. Kitur & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Nixon