[2021] KEELRC 730 (KLR)
The court found that the 4th Respondent, upon joining the suit, was obligated to file a response at the earliest opportunity. Given that the case had already progressed significantly, with the Claimants' witnesses having testified and been cross-examined, allowing the 4th Respondent to file a late response would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 730 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Githinji & 131 Others; Respondent: Kenya Medical Research Institute; Respondent: The Director, Kenya Medical Research Institute; Respondent: The Board of Management, Kenya Medical Research Institute; Respondent: Salaries Remuneration Commission; Respondent: Ministry of Health; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1545 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Leave to File Response Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application for leave to file response out of time dismissed.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Late Filing of Pleadings, Prejudice to Parties, Case Management, Right to Fair Hearing
- 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
Edward Githinji & 131 Others
Applicant
Kenya Medical Research Institute
Respondent
The Director, Kenya Medical Research Institute
Respondent
The Board of Management, Kenya Medical Research Institute
Respondent
Salaries Remuneration Commission
Respondent
Ministry of Health
Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Leave to File Response Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th Respondent should be granted leave to file a response to the claim out of time.
- 2 Whether allowing the late filing would prejudice the Claimants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 4th Respondent, upon joining the suit, was obligated to file a response at the earliest opportunity. Given that the case had already progressed significantly, with the Claimants' witnesses having testified and been cross-examined, allowing the 4th Respondent to file a late response would prejudice the Claimants by requiring them to face a new case and potentially testify again. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for leave to file a response out of time, prioritizing the need for expeditious resolution and fairness to the parties who had complied with procedural timelines.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to file response out of time dismissed.
Orders
- No further filings by the 4th Respondent are allowed.
- Matter referred to the Registry for allocation of a hearing date before another judge.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1545 OF 2018
EDWARD GITHINJI & 131 OTHERS......................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
KENYA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE..............1ST RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR,
KENYA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE.............2ND RESPONDENT
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,
KENYA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE.............3RD RESPONDENT
SALARIES REMUNERATION COMMISSION..........4TH RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF HEALTH................................................5TH RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY,
NATIONAL TREASURY...............................................6TH RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................................7TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The 4th Respondent seeks leave to file a response to claim. Mr. Sitienei asserts that the 4th Respondent will be able to file its response to the claim within 7 days.
2. The Claimants through their advocate Mr. Jaoko in a rather lengthy and unnecessary response to the request assets the 2 witnesses of the Claimant have testified and been cross examined in full and the Respondents have known the strength of the Claimants’ case and the weaknesses of theirs. He thus urges the Court not to allow the late filing of a response as pleadings closed within 14 days of service of the claim.
3. The 4th Respondent asserts in a brief reply that the Claimants will not be prejudiced if they file the proposed defence. The 4th Respondent assets the Claimants can be recalled and re-examined and cross-examined in the event they wish to rebut any of the additional matters as may arise courtesy of the defence by 4th Respondent.
4. The Court is inclined to agree with the Claimants on this score as the 4th Respondent upon coming into the suit ought to have at the barest minimum filed a response. It would seem therefore that the case having progressed to this position, it would prejudice the Claimants to have to face a new case, testifying again and ultimately a determination of the Court issue. As such I decline the invitation to allow any further filings as the case is slowly creeping to its third year in the cause lists.
5. Mention today was to get further directions on hearing and due to the delays occasioned by the aborted hearing my Court cannot hear the matter any further this year as all available slots for hearing have been taken up till end of term in December. Granted the interests of justice dictate a speedy resolution of disputes before the Court, I refer the matter to the Registry for the taking of a date before any other Judge who may have a slot for hearing this term. Mention will be before Deputy Registrar on 21st October 2021 to give further directions as to hearing.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE