[2024] KEELRC 2757 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 2757 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for change of advocates after judgment as stipulated under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No notice to the previous advocates or consent was provided, rendering the application irregular. The court further held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 2757 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Onyango Muga; Respondent: Sagala General Construction Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Change of Advocates
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Work Injury Benefits, Review of Court Orders, Change of Advocates, Enforcement of Awards
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Work Injury Benefits Review of Court Orders Change of Advocates Enforcement of Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Onyango Muga

Applicant

Sagala General Construction Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Change of Advocates

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review and enforce the Director's award under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for change of advocates after judgment.
  3. 3 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the court's ruling dated 6 July 2023.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for change of advocates after judgment as stipulated under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No notice to the previous advocates or consent was provided, rendering the application irregular. The court further held that the alleged error on the face of the record was not established, as the notice relied upon by the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements under the Work Injury Benefits Act. The court emphasized that procedural rules are mandatory and cannot be disregarded or cured by judicial discretion or constitutional provisions. The application for review was therefore dismissed for...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 17 September 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.