[2022] KEELRC 406 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's explanation for non-attendance was unpersuasive, as counsel should have arranged for another advocate to hold his brief or informed the court of the delay. However, the application that was dismissed was unopposed and raised grave allegations about the validity of the verifying...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 406 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Lydia Akinyi; Respondent: Africa Plantation Capital Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 582 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement
- Outcome
- application for reinstatement allowed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Application, Striking Out of Claim, Verifying Affidavit Validity
- 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
Lydia Akinyi
Claimant
Africa Plantation Capital Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's application for reinstatement of its earlier application should be allowed.
- 2 Whether the respondent's explanation for non-attendance at the hearing is persuasive.
- 3 Whether the claim should be struck out due to an allegedly defective verifying affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's explanation for non-attendance was unpersuasive, as counsel should have arranged for another advocate to hold his brief or informed the court of the delay. However, the application that was dismissed was unopposed and raised grave allegations about the validity of the verifying affidavit, which could affect the entire claim. The court held that such serious issues should not be disposed of merely due to counsel's absence. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the application for reinstatement was allowed so that the substantive issues could be heard and determined.
Court Disposition
application for reinstatement allowed
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 21st November 2019 for reinstatement of its earlier application is allowed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOURRELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 582 OF 2017
BETWEEN
LYDIA AKINYI ...........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
AFRICA PLANTATION CAPITAL LIMITED....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. An Application dated 23rd October 2019, filed by the Respondent, sought to have the Claim struck out, on the ground that the Verifying Affidavit, was commissioned by an unqualified person.
2. The Application was scheduled for hearing, on 20th November 2019.
3. It was dismissed by the Court, when both Parties failed to attend Court, on the appointed date.
4. The Respondent has filed an Application on 21st November 2019, seeking reinstatement of the Application dated 23rd October 2019.
5. The Counsel for the Respondent explains in his Supporting Affidavit, sworn on 20th November 2019, that he was involved in a High Court Succession Cause on the same date, which took slightly longer than he expected. By the time he arrived at this Court, the Application had been called and dismissed for non-attendance. The Application had not been responded to, at the time of the hearing. The Respondent had filed Submissions in support of its Application.
6. The Claimant does not appear to have filed a Replying Affidavit to the Application for reinstatement. There is an Affidavit showing service.
The Court Finds: -
7. The explanation by the Counsel for the Respondent, that he had another matter at the High Court, and was delayed there before approaching this Court, does not sound persuasive.
8. Counsel with other matters in different Courts at the same time, ordinarily organize for other Counsel to hold their briefs. Courts are reasonable, and upon being asked to wait for Counsel held up in other Courts, always keep the files aside, to allow Counsel to finalize in the other Courts, and attend the next Court.
9. What cannot be countenanced, and what the Court did not countenance on 20th November 2019, is a situation where a scheduled matter is called, and there is no one, to address the Court. How will Courts conduct their business without Parties and their Representatives? The Court would be justified in assuming that the Parties, are not interested in canvassing the matter before it, and in dismissing the matter for non-attendance.
10. Why did not Counsel for the Respondent, arrange for holding of his brief?
11. The Application which was dismissed however, was unopposed. But there was no one to even communicate this to the Court. The Respondent had filed its Submissions, which with a little effort by the Respondent, could have been adopted and obviated the need for oral prosecution. The Application raised serious questions on the validity of the entire Claim. The allegations that the Verifying Affidavit was commissioned by an unqualified Advocate, and a person who is not a Commissioner for Oaths, are very grave allegations. They cannot be swept under the carpet, on the basis on the Respondent’s Counsel non-attendance. The Application merits a hearing. The Claimant needs to show that her Claim, is validly before the Court.
IT IS ORDERED: -
a. The Application filed by the Respondent on 21st November 2019, seeking reinstatement of Respondent’s Application dated 23rd October 2019, is allowed.
b. Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY, AT NAIROBI, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
JAMES RIKA
JUDGE