[2021] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's claim of ignorance regarding the conduct of hearings in open court was untenable, as the relevant information had been publicly available on the Kenya Law website and daily cause lists since September 2021. The court held that the respondent's failure to appear and prosecute its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 104 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Isaiah Mwaniki Mathenge; Respondent: China Road & Bridge Corporation
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2273 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Closure of Defence Case
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Reopening of Defence Case, Review of Court Orders, Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Reopening of Defence Case Review of Court Orders Natural Justice Right to Be Heard

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

Isaiah Mwaniki Mathenge

Claimant

China Road & Bridge Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Closure of Defence Case

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and/or set aside the orders closing the defence case and all consequential orders.
  2. 2 Whether the defence case should be reopened to allow the respondent to present its witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was denied the right to be heard contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's claim of ignorance regarding the conduct of hearings in open court was untenable, as the relevant information had been publicly available on the Kenya Law website and daily cause lists since September 2021. The court held that the respondent's failure to appear and prosecute its defence case was not justified, and that the application to review and set aside the orders closing the defence case lacked merit. The court emphasized that parties seeking equitable relief must act with candour and diligence, and that the respondent's explanations did not warrant the reopening of the defence case. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to review and/or set aside the orders closing the defence case and all consequential orders is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.