[2019] KEELRC 1611 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent's counsel was not candid in his explanation for failing to attend court, as the alleged appeal was not proceeding on the stated date. The absence was not due to accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake, but appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay or obstruct the course of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1611 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Douglas Maina Kamau; Applicant: Kibirigwi Farmers Co-operative Society Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 441 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reopen Claimant's Case
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Non Attendance of Counsel, Reopening of Case
- 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
Douglas Maina Kamau
Respondent
Kibirigwi Farmers Co-operative Society Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reopen Claimant's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent/Applicant has provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to reopen the Claimant's case.
- 2 Whether the absence of the Respondent's counsel was due to excusable mistake or deliberate evasion.
- 3 Whether the interests of justice require the reopening of the Claimant's case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent's counsel was not candid in his explanation for failing to attend court, as the alleged appeal was not proceeding on the stated date. The absence was not due to accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake, but appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay or obstruct the course of justice. The Respondent also failed to send any representative or witness, further indicating a lack of intention to participate in the hearing. Consequently, the court held that there was no sufficient basis to exercise its discretion to reopen the Claimant's case. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant, and the matter was directed to proceed to final...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Orders
- The application to reopen the Claimant's case is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
- The matter will proceed to final submissions pending judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CASE NO. 441 OF 2017
DOUGLAS MAINA KAMAU.....................CLAIMANT/ RESPONDENT
VERSUS
KIBIRIGWI FARMERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED....RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The application before me is the Respondent/Applicant’s notice of motion application dated 18th March 2019 seeking to reopen the Claimant’s case due to inadvertence of the Respondent’s counsel to attend court on the date scheduled for hearing which was on 11th March 2019 and on the subsequent date the matter was heard which was on 12th March 2019. The motion is premised on the grounds on the face of the motion and the affidavit of K. M. Maina, an advocate.
2. The application is opposed by the Claimant who deposes in his replying affidavit that he was to be heard on 11th March 2019 and because the matter was not reached on that day it was rescheduled for the next day and at the time neither the Respondent nor the advocate were present in court. He asserts that the Respondent is undeserving of the exercise of discretion of the court and that the court should proceed to prepare judgment as the case for the Respondent had been closed on the 12th March 2019.
3. The case was scheduled for hearing on 11th March 2019 but could not be reached and in absence of counsel for the Respondent, the case was fixed for hearing the next day. The absence of counsel for the Respondent is explained to have been on account of a hearing of an appeal No. 132 of 2017. The case he refers to, Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2017 was to be heard at Nyeri though it emanated from the Nakuru Registry. Upon enquiry by this court about the said appeal at the Court of Appeal Registry at Nyeri, it was confirmed that the matter was taken out of the hearing list on 11th March 2019 meaning that the appeal did not proceed. The advocate was therefore less than candid in asserting that he failed to attend court before of a matter that was proceeding before the Court of Appeal.
4. In setting aside, a court has to consider various principles which are all geared to ensuring that in the exercise of the said discretion there is a free exercise of discretion that is neither capricious or arbitrary. First, there are no limits or restrictions on the judge’s discretion except that it should be based on such terms as may be just because the main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties. Secondly, this discretion to be exercised by the judge is intended so to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist the person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise, to obstruct or delay the course of justice. Counsel for the Respondent clearly is deliberately by evasion or otherwise seeking to obstruct the course of justice or delay the matter. If he was in the court precincts on that day, it was a deliberate effort to delay the case if he did not appear. He does not assert he was unwell or otherwise indisposed to an extent he could not attend court. His client the Respondent did not avail any representative or witness further demonstrating there was no intention to participate in the hearing scheduled for 11th March 2019. As there is no basis to reopen the Claimant’s case, the matter will proceed to final submissions pending judgment. Application is dismissed with costs to the Claimant. The court will give further directions on the closing stages for the matter on the issue of submissions and a judgment date upon delivery of this ruling.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 24th day of May 2019
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE
I certify that this is a
true copy of the Original
Deputy Registrar