[2017] KEELRC 586 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 586 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's advocates failed to diligently serve the application to cease acting on all parties as required by the court's directions and the rules of procedure. The explanation provided for the failure—miscommunication by an advocate holding brief—was not sufficient to excuse...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 586 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Delewa Barua; Applicant: Mary Mukami Gicheru; Respondent: Good Bread Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 758 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application by Respondent's Advocates to Cease Acting
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimants
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Change of Advocates, Service of Process, Court Practice and Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Change of Advocates Service of Process Court Practice and Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Delewa Barua

Applicant

Mary Mukami Gicheru

Applicant

Good Bread Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application by Respondent's Advocates to Cease Acting

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's advocates should be granted leave to cease acting for the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the application to cease acting was properly served on all parties as required by court rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's advocates failed to diligently serve the application to cease acting on all parties as required by the court's directions and the rules of procedure. The explanation provided for the failure—miscommunication by an advocate holding brief—was not sufficient to excuse non-compliance. The court emphasized the importance of diligence and adherence to procedural requirements, particularly regarding service of applications. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application with costs to the claimants, reinforcing the principle that parties and their advocates must strictly comply with court orders and procedural rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimants

Orders

  • The motion dated 6 April 2017 is dismissed with costs to the claimants.