[2025] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and their counsel had established a pattern of non-attendance, having failed to appear on three separate occasions, including at the taxation ruling, the hearing for adoption of the certificate of costs, and the hearing of their own application for stay of execution....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Kariuki t/a Direct Auctioneers; Respondent: Sheracco Savings & Credit Society Limited; Respondent: Karuturi Limited; Respondent: CFC Bank Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Application, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Stay of Execution, Taxation of Costs
- 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
Geoffrey Kariuki t/a Direct Auctioneers
Applicant
Sheracco Savings & Credit Society Limited
Respondent
Karuturi Limited
Respondent
CFC Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for reinstatement of the dismissed application should be allowed.
- 2 Whether non-attendance by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and their counsel was excusable.
- 3 Whether the pattern of non-attendance justified refusal to reinstate the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and their counsel had established a pattern of non-attendance, having failed to appear on three separate occasions, including at the taxation ruling, the hearing for adoption of the certificate of costs, and the hearing of their own application for stay of execution. The court held that the absence was neither inadvertent nor excusable, but rather an established practice. Consequently, the court declined to reinstate the application, emphasizing that repeated non-attendance cannot be justified by counsel's error, especially where it forms a pattern rather than an isolated incident.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 19th March 2025 is declined.
- Costs awarded to the Applicant/Auctioneer.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Kariuki t/a Direct Auctioneers v Sheracco Savings & Credit Society Limited & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1869 (KLR) (27 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024
J Rika, J
June 27, 2025
Between
Geoffrey Kariuki t/a Direct Auctioneers
Decree holder
and
Sheracco Savings & Credit Society Limited
1st Judgment debtor
Karuturi limited
2nd Judgment debtor
CFC Bank limited
3rd Judgment debtor
Ruling
1. This ruling relates to an application brought by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, dated 19th March 2025.
2. They seek an order for reinstatement of their application dated 22nd January 2025.
3. The application dated 22nd January 2025, sought orders for stay of execution of the decree, and setting aside in its entirety, of the Bill of Costs which was taxed in favour of the Applicant/ Auctioneer.
4. The application was dismissed on 4th March 2025 for non-attendance.
5. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents explain that non-attendance was not deliberate. It is inexcusable. Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondent failed to diarize the hearing date. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents ought not to be punished for the error of their Counsel.
6. The application is opposed through the affidavit of the Applicant’s Counsel, Naomi Muriithi, sworn on 24th April 2025.
7. She states that the application dated 22nd January 2025, was filed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents under certificate of urgency. It was scheduled for hearing on 4th March 2025. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not attend hearing. The application was correctly dismissed for non-attendance.
8. Parties agreed that the application is considered and determined on the strength of their affidavits and submissions.
The Court Finds: - 9. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ Counsel’s absence from the Court on 4th March 2025, was not an isolated case.
10. The record indicates that there was no attendance for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 1st October 2024, when the Taxing Officer delivered her ruling on taxation.
11. The Applicant filed an application dated 3rd December 2024 for adoption of the certificate of costs as a decree of the Court. It was scheduled for hearing on 11th December 2024.
12. The 2nd and 3rd Respondent, and their Counsel did not attend Court, and the application dated 3rd December 2024 was allowed un-opposed.
13. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents then filed the application dated 22nd January 2025 under certificate of urgency, asking for stay of execution of decree.
14. Considering the urgency, the Court scheduled the application for hearing on 4th March 2025. The Applicant’s Counsel attended Court, ready to respond to the application. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and their Counsel, did not again, attend Court.
15. It was the 3rd time absent. This was in keeping with the Respondent’s past practice. The application was dismissed for non-attendance.
16. Non-attendance was therefore neither inadvertent, nor excusable. It was an established practice and pattern.
17. It is ordered: -a.The application dated 19th March 2025 is declined.b.Costs to the Applicant/ Auctioneer.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. JAMES RIKAJUDGE.