[2022] KEELRC 520 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 520 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The applicant had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings, was aware of the hearing dates, and had even filed a defence and attended court. His failure to diligently prosecute his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 520 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Karongo Wagana; Respondent: National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 18 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Judgment, Stay of Execution, Setting Aside Judgment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Ex Parte Judgment Stay of Execution Setting Aside Judgment

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Karongo Wagana

Applicant

National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 9th April 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the ex parte judgment and decree pending hearing and determination of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing or was otherwise condemned unheard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The applicant had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings, was aware of the hearing dates, and had even filed a defence and attended court. His failure to diligently prosecute his case and subsequent delay in seeking to set aside the judgment was attributed to his own inertia. The court held that the application was an attempt to delay execution and deprive the respondent of the fruits of judgment. Consequently, the application for stay of execution and setting aside the ex parte judgment was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 23rd December 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.