[2022] KEELRC 678 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 678 (KLR)

The court held that while it is important for parties to be heard on the merits, the law prescribes clear timelines for filing pleadings, and parties cannot be allowed to disregard these timelines indefinitely. The respondent was served with the claim but failed to file a response or seek leave to file out of time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 678 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Jasper Odhiambo Lubeto; Respondent: Mount Kenya University
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E469 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Directions and Extend Time for Response
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AN Mwaure
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Formal Proof, Failure to File Response, Covid19 Procedural Impact
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Extension of Time Formal Proof Failure to File Response Covid19 Procedural Impact

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasper Odhiambo Lubeto

Claimant

Mount Kenya University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Directions and Extend Time for Response

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside its directions for formal proof due to the respondent's failure to file a response within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be granted an extension of time to file their response to the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while it is important for parties to be heard on the merits, the law prescribes clear timelines for filing pleadings, and parties cannot be allowed to disregard these timelines indefinitely. The respondent was served with the claim but failed to file a response or seek leave to file out of time for over a year, only acting when the matter was set for formal proof. The court found no sufficient justification for the delay and determined that allowing the respondent's application would undermine the purpose of procedural rules. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the directions for formal proof and refused to grant an extension of time for the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's application to set aside the court's directions and for extension of time to file response is dismissed.
  • The matter shall proceed to formal proof.