[2022] KEELRC 205 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent was served and entered appearance through its advocates but failed to take any further steps to defend the suit. The respondent blamed its advocates for not filing a defence but did not demonstrate any action on its part to ensure the suit was defended, nor did it attach a draft...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 205 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union; Respondent: Tononoka Rolling Mills Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1646 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Default Judgment, Advocate Negligence, Union Recognition
- 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
Kenya Engineering Workers Union
Claimant
Tononoka Rolling Mills Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside the judgment delivered on 5th February, 2018.
- 2 Whether the failure to file a defence due to advocate negligence justifies setting aside the judgment.
- 3 Whether the respondent has an arguable defence to the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent was served and entered appearance through its advocates but failed to take any further steps to defend the suit. The respondent blamed its advocates for not filing a defence but did not demonstrate any action on its part to ensure the suit was defended, nor did it attach a draft defence to the application. The court held that while negligence of an advocate may not always be visited upon the client, the client must also show that it was not indolent. The respondent failed to act from the time of entering appearance in 2016 until judgment was delivered in 2018 and only responded when execution proceedings commenced. The court concluded that the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 12th March, 2018 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
- Ruling delivered online with parties' consent in accordance with COVID-19 measures and relevant legal provisions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1646 OF 2016
KENYA ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION...........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TONONOKA ROLLING MILLS LIMITED...........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Notice of Motion application dated 12th March, 2018 was filed to set aside judgment of the Court delivered on 5th August, 2018.
2. The application is premised on grounds set out on the notice of motion to wit; that the respondent had instructed the firm of Taibjee and Bhalla Advocates to act on their behalf on 14th September, 2016. That the firm of advocates failed to file a defence to the detriment of the Respondent. That the respondent only became aware that a defence had not been filed and judgment entered against the respondent upon receiving letter from the claimant dated 17th February, 2018 inviting the respondent to honour the judgment dated 5th February, 2018.
3. That the respondent has a valid defence to the claim.
4. That the claimant will not suffer any prejudice if the cause is heard interpartes but the respondent will suffer great prejudice if the claimant proceeds with execution in respect of the matter where the respondent had no opportunity to defend.
5. That the respondent is willing to meet any terms placed by the Court. The application is supported by the affidavit of one Dharmesh Savla, sworn to on 18th March, 2018 in which he deposes that he received the letter dated 17th February, 2018 in respect of the Court judgment dated 5th February, 2018.
6. That there was no communication from their advocates prior to this date. That upon perusal of the judgment, it became clear that their advocate had not filed a defence to the suit. That the respondent has a good defence to the suit. That it is in the interest of justice that the judgment be set aside and the matter be heard interpartes.
7. The application is opposed by the claimant/respondent who has since filed an application for execution of the decree of the Court by compelling the Director of the Applicant to recognize the union as directed by the Court in its judgment dated on 5th August, 2018 and dated on 16th August, 2018.
8. From the Judgment of the Court, it is clear that the suit was served on the respondent and the respondent entered appearance through its advocates on 14th September, 2016.
9. The respondent only blames its advocates for the failure to file a defence against the suit but has not demonstrated any action on its part to ensure that the suit was defended. Indeed, no draft statement of defence has been attached to this application and the respondent has therefore not demonstrated that it has an arguable defence in this matter.
10. Courts have time and again ruled that whereas, it is not right to visit the negligence of an advocate on their client, it is trite that the respondent must also demonstrate that it was not indolent and that it was not itself guilty of inaction.
11. Since notice of appearance was entered on 14th September, 2016, the respondent has not demonstrated it took any step at all until judgment was delivered on 5th February, 2018 and only arose from its slumber when steps to execute the judgment were taken by a letter dated 22nd February, 2018.
12. The applicant has failed to satisfy the Court that it is entitled to the Court’s use of discretion to set its judgment aside in respect of a matter that was filed against the respondent in the year 2016 and did not take any step until the matter was heard and determined.
13. Accordingly, the application dated 12th March, 2018 lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of the declaration of measures restricting court of operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020, this ruling has been delivered to the parties online with their consent. They have waived compliance with Order 21 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
JUDGE
Appearance
Mrs Nyaicha for Respondent/Applicant
Mr. Haraka for claimant/respondent
Ekale – Court Assistant