[2023] KEELRC 1295 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's service of summons on Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited, rather than the respondent, was improper and unjustified. The bank was not a party to the proceedings and had not employed the claimant. The claimant admitted he did not serve the respondent. As a result, the order for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erick Keith Muriithi; Respondent: Kenya Cooperative Coffee Exporter Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E185 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Formal Proof and for Leave to File Response Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed; formal proof set aside; leave to respond granted
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Setting Aside Formal Proof, Leave to File Out of Time, Corporate Entity Service
- 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
Erick Keith Muriithi
Applicant
Kenya Cooperative Coffee Exporter Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Formal Proof and for Leave to File Response Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of summons on a third party (Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited) instead of the respondent was valid service.
- 2 Whether the order for formal proof should be set aside due to lack of proper service on the respondent.
- 3 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to file its statement of response out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's service of summons on Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited, rather than the respondent, was improper and unjustified. The bank was not a party to the proceedings and had not employed the claimant. The claimant admitted he did not serve the respondent. As a result, the order for formal proof was set aside, and the respondent was granted unconditional leave to file its statement of response out of time. The court emphasized that proper service on the correct party is fundamental to fair proceedings and that failure to do so invalidates subsequent steps taken in default.
Court Disposition
application allowed; formal proof set aside; leave to respond granted
Orders
- The order issued on November 24, 2022 scheduling the claim for formal proof hearing is set aside.
- The respondent is granted unconditional leave to respond to the claim.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Muriithi v Kenya Cooperative Coffee Exporter Limited (Cause E185 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1295 (KLR) (31 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 1295 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E185 of 2022
J Rika, J
May 31, 2023
Between
Erick Keith Muriithi
Claimant
and
Kenya Cooperative Coffee Exporter Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The claimant moved the court to have the claim heard by way of formal proof, on November 24, 2022.
2. His position was that the respondent, having been served with the notice of summons and statement of claim, had failed to enter appearance and file a statement of response, in accordance with theEmployment and Labour Relations Court [Procedure] Rules, 2016.
3. Formal proof hearing was scheduled for April 6, 2023.
4. The respondent filed an application under certificate of urgency, dated February 1, 2023. The application seeks that the proceedings are stayed; the order made for formal proof on November 24, 2022 is set aside; the respondent is granted leave to file its statement of response out of time; the draft statement of response annexed to the supporting affidavit is deemed as duly filed and served, upon payment of the requisite court fees; and costs be in the cause.
5. The application is founded on the affidavit of the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Dr Jane Kathuku, sworn on January 19, 2023. Dr Kathuku also filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on February 16, 2023.
6. The main ground in support of the Application, is that at all times, the claimant served court summons upon the Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited, and not the respondent.
7. The claimant opposes the application through his replying affidavit, sworn on the February 7, 2023. He does not deny that he served court summons upon the Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited. He explains that he did so, because all along, the unlawful acts against him, upon which this claim is brought, were orchestrated by the Cooperative Bank Limited, and not by the respondent.
8. Parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions, which they confirmed to have filed and exchanged at the last mention, on March 21, 2023.
The Court Finds: - 9. The choice made by the claimant, to serve the Cooperative Bank, instead of the respondent, appears to the court, quite strange.
10. He explains that the bank orchestrated unlawful actions taken against him by the respondent. Does this justify service on the bank? The bank did not employ him. It is not a party to the claim. It is a separate legal entity from the respondent. If there was a cause of action against the bank, the claimant ought to have joined the bank to the claim, not serve the bank with the summons.
11. The claimant admits he did not serve the respondent. It is not necessary to go into the rules on service on a corporate entity under theEmployment and Labour Relations Court [Procedure] Rules, 2016; the claimant concedes he did not serve the respondent at all.
It Is Ordered: -a.The order issued on November 24, 2022 scheduling the claim for formal proof hearing is set aside.b.The respondent is granted unconditional leave to respond to the claim.c.The draft statement of response shall be deemed to have been properly filed and served, upon payment of the requisite court fees.d.Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES VIA E-MAIL AT NAIROBI, UNDER PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 6 [2] OF THE ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, 2020, THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023. James RikaJudge