[2023] KEELRC 766 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte orders issued on September 12, 2022, were made without affording the parties an inter partes hearing, thereby violating the fundamental right to be heard. The agreements between the parties contained explicit arbitration clauses, which the court had previously overlooked. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 766 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dr. Diana Ngendo Mburu; Respondent: Sagitarix Ltd; Respondent: Checkups Medical Centre Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E542 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
- Outcome
- Application allowed; ex parte orders set aside; chamber summons application reinstated for inter partes hearing; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Arbitration Clauses, Right to Be Heard, Ex Parte Orders, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, Abuse of Process
- 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
Dr. Diana Ngendo Mburu
Applicant
Sagitarix Ltd
Respondent
Checkups Medical Centre Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review, set aside or vary the ex parte orders issued on September 12, 2022.
- 2 Whether the arbitration clauses in the agreements between the parties should be upheld.
- 3 Whether the claimant failed to follow the agreed dispute resolution mechanism, rendering the suit an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte orders issued on September 12, 2022, were made without affording the parties an inter partes hearing, thereby violating the fundamental right to be heard. The agreements between the parties contained explicit arbitration clauses, which the court had previously overlooked. The court held that the right to a hearing is non-negotiable and that the interests of justice required the application to be allowed so that the parties could be heard on the merits of the chamber summons application. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to review and set aside the ex parte orders, reinstating the application for inter partes hearing. Each party was ordered...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; ex parte orders set aside; chamber summons application reinstated for inter partes hearing; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The application dated December 10, 2022 is allowed.
- The ex parte orders issued on September 12, 2022 are reviewed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Mburu v Sagitarix Ltd & another (Cause E542 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 766 (KLR) (28 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 766 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E542 of 2022
DKN Marete, J
March 28, 2023
Between
Dr. Diana Ngendo Mburu
Claimant
and
Sagitarix Ltd
1st Respondent
Checkups Medical Centre Ltd
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. This is an application by way of notice of motion dated December 10, 2022. It comes out thus: 1. That there be a stay of all proceedings in this suit pending the inter partes hearing and determination of this application.
2. That this honourable court be pleased to review, set aside and/or vary the orders issued on September 12, 2022 by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango.
3. That the respondent’s/applicant’s chamber summons application dated September 9, 2022 be reinstated and be heard inter partes.
4. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. It is grounded as follows;a.The agreements providing for arbitration were wilfully entered into by both parties and should therefore be upheld. The arbitration clauses are operational and capable of being performed.b.There is a dispute between the parties as to the termination of the parties agreements and the alleged remedies, if any, due to the claimant arising from the termination of the agreements.c.The claimant herein has not followed the stipulated legal requirements relating to the parties’ agreed dispute resolution mechanism, thereby making the suit filed by the claimant an abuse of the court process particularly in light of the arbitration clauses.
3. The claimant/respondent in her grounds of opposition dated January 30, 2023 answers the application on the following terms. It isher case that the application does not meet the thresholdfor review as envisaged in rule 33, of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. Again, the claimant raises constitutional issues which can only be determined by this court under article 165(3)(6) of theConstitution of Kenya, 2010.
4It is her further case that the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of court.
5. The parties further buttress the various positions and cases through their respective written submissions in support of their cases.
6. It is the respondent/applicant’s case that this court has wide powers and discretion to review and set aside the ex parte orders dated September 12, 2022. She urges the court to exercise its discretion and review and set aside the orders as they were entered irregularly without affording the parties an interpartes hearing on the merits of the chamber summons application dated September 9, 2022. It is clear from the record that the court in making its orders on September 12, 2022, striking out the Chamber Summons application dated September 9, 2022, acted in the mistaken belief that the parties’ agreement did not provide for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, yet the said agreements explicitly provided for arbitration if any dispute cannot be settled amicably, by mediation or otherwise.
7. The respondent/applicant’s case overwhelms that of the claimant. This is because it is visibly that from the onset, the application dated September 9, 2022 was determined summarily and without hearing the parties to the application. The right to a hearing is fundamental, basic and cardinal and non-negotiable. It should never have been ousted in the first place.
8. This is a case for allowing the application. This is because the parties should, in the interest of justice be facilitated and accommodated in a hearing of the issues raised in the now impugned application. There is no choice on this.
9. I am therefore inclined to allow the application with orders that each party bears their costs of the same..
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023. D.K. NJAGI MARETEJUDGEAppearancesKomu instructed by Nduta, Munene & Kimo Advocates for the Respondent/Applicant instructed by Onesmus Githinji & Company Advocates for the Claimant/RespondentMiss Njeri Kariuki holding brief for Kalaine instructed by Onesmus Githinji & Company Advocates for the Claimant/Respondent