[2014] KEELRC 556 (KLR)
The court found that the award comprised statutory payments to which the claimant was entitled after 25 years of service. The respondent had notice of the hearing and failed to attend without a convincing explanation. The court determined that setting aside the award would further prejudice the claimant, who had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 556 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Elijah K. Tonui; Respondent: Ngara Opticians
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 871 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Award
- Outcome
- application to set aside award rejected
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Award, Service Pay, Annual Leave, Statutory Entitlements
- 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
Elijah K. Tonui
Claimant
Ngara Opticians
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its award delivered on 28th January 2014 in favour of the claimant.
- 2 Whether the respondent's failure to attend the hearing was excusable and warrants reopening the proceedings.
- 3 Whether setting aside the award would prejudice the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the award comprised statutory payments to which the claimant was entitled after 25 years of service. The respondent had notice of the hearing and failed to attend without a convincing explanation. The court determined that setting aside the award would further prejudice the claimant, who had already suffered delay in receiving his statutory entitlements. The respondent's advocates' failure to record the hearing date was not a sufficient ground to reopen the proceedings, especially given the respondent's repeated non-attendance. The application to set aside the award was therefore rejected to prevent further injustice to the claimant.
Court Disposition
application to set aside award rejected
Orders
- The application dated 11th February 2014 is rejected.
- No order on the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 871 OF 2012
BETWEEN
ELIJAH K. TONUI………………………………………………………...CLAIMANT
VERSUS
NGARA OPTICIANS……………………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The Award of the Court was delivered on 28th January 2014. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total sum of Kshs.426,461. 45, comprising service pay and annual leave.
The Respondent did not participate in the main hearing, despite having filed a Statement of Response.
On 12th February 2014, the Respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the Award, and to be allowed to respond to the Claim.
The application is based on the affidavit of the Respondent’s Advocate Rachel Mbaka, sworn on 11th February 2014.
The Claimant is opposed to the application, and filed 4 Grounds in opposition, on 18th February 2014.
The Application was heard on 19th February 2014. The Respondent acknowledges it was notified of the hearing date for the main Claim. Its Advocates inadvertently failed to record the date in their office diary. This is an error that should not be visited on the Respondent and the Claimant would not be prejudiced by the setting aside of the Award. The Claimant’s position is that the Respondent’s Advocates have not shown they failed to record the hearing date by error. The Claimant would be prejudiced if the Award is set aside, as he has been out of work from 2011.
The Court finds and Orders:-
1. The Award made by the Court is in the nature of statutory payments, nothing more. The Claimant left employment in 2011, after 25 years of work; he left with nothing. All the Court ordered is that he is paid service pay and annual leave as contemplated by the Law.
2. He has already been prejudiced by not receiving a social security payment, 3 years after he left employment. The Court would be prejudicing him further, by setting aside its decision, and opening up another round of hearings.
3. The Respondent had an opportunity to respond in full to the Claim, but did not attend the hearing. There is no convincing reason why the Respondent’s Advocates failed to attend Court. The record of the Court indicates there has been no attendance by the Respondent, even on previous Court sessions, when procedural orders in one form or the other, issued. IT IS ORDERED:-
(a) The application dated 11th February 2014 is rejected.
(b) No order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of March 2014
James Rika
Judge