[2022] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

The court found that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for failing to attend the hearing on 8th July 2021 were unpersuasive, as the hearing notice was properly served and the Respondent's Advocates ought to have diarized the date. The Respondent's explanation, based on a general claim of improper file labeling,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 236 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: David Githenya Chege; Respondent: Amboseli Institute of Hospitality & Technology Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 840 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Outcome
application declined with costs to the claimant
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Proceedings, Setting Aside Orders, Procedural Default, Delay in Filing, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Ex Parte Proceedings Setting Aside Orders Procedural Default Delay in Filing Service of Process

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 Githenya Chege

Claimant

Amboseli Institute of Hospitality & Technology Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent has provided sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte proceedings of 8th July 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside was inordinate and excusable.
  3. 3 Whether repeated defaults by the Respondent justify reopening the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for failing to attend the hearing on 8th July 2021 were unpersuasive, as the hearing notice was properly served and the Respondent's Advocates ought to have diarized the date. The Respondent's explanation, based on a general claim of improper file labeling, lacked specificity and credibility. Furthermore, the application to set aside was filed after an inordinate delay of four months following the close of the hearing. The court also noted a pattern of repeated defaults by the Respondent, including a prior instance where the Respondent failed to attend and subsequently sought to set aside ex parte proceedings. The court held that...

Court Disposition

application declined with costs to the claimant

Orders

  • The Respondent's application dated 1st November 2021 is declined with costs to the Claimant.
  • Parties shall file and exchange their closing submissions before 31st May 2022.