[2019] KEELRC 428 (KLR)
The court found that there was no satisfactory evidence that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had been properly served with summons and notice of the proceedings. The late filing of the affidavit of service, without explanation for the delay or for the failure to address the court's earlier concerns, rendered the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 428 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Okech Okoth; Respondent: Al-Meezan Exhibition Ltd; Respondent: Khelji Muhhamad Idris; Respondent: Abdul Azizi
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1670 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Service of Summons
- Outcome
- Claimant directed to serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents afresh; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Affidavit of Service, Unfair Termination, Breach of Contract
- 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
Peter Okech Okoth
Claimant
Al-Meezan Exhibition Ltd
Respondent
Khelji Muhhamad Idris
Respondent
Abdul Azizi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Service of Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents were properly served with summons and notice of the proceedings.
- 2 Whether the affidavit of service filed by the Claimant was satisfactory to prove service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no satisfactory evidence that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had been properly served with summons and notice of the proceedings. The late filing of the affidavit of service, without explanation for the delay or for the failure to address the court's earlier concerns, rendered the purported service unsatisfactory. As a result, the court directed that the Claimant must serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents afresh before the matter could proceed.
Court Disposition
Claimant directed to serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents afresh; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The Claimant is directed to serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents afresh.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1670 OF 2014
PETER OKECH OKOTH..................................................................CLAIMANT
v
AL-MEEZAN EXHIBITION LTD..........................................1st RESPONDENT
KHELJI MUHHAMAD IDRIS..............................................2nd RESPONDENT
ABDUL AZIZI..........................................................................3rd RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant instituted legal proceedings against the Respondents on 25 September 2014 alleging unfair termination of employment and breach of contract/statute.
2. The 3rd Respondent entered Appearance through the firm of Gikunda Miriti & Co. Advocates on 8 October 2014.
3. The Claimant then caused the suit to be set down for hearing severally but due to various reasons, the hearings did not proceed.
4. On 17 January 2019, the Court differently constituted declined to proceed with the hearing because there was no evidence that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had been served.
5. When the Cause came up for hearing again on 6 November 2019, the Claimant indicated that he was ready.
6. The Court then perused the record and found no evidence at all that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had been served with Notice of Summons.
7. The Claimant insisted that service had been effected and that an affidavit of service could be filed. The Court directed the filing of the affidavit of service.
8. The Claimant filed the affidavit of service on 7 November 2019 wherein it was deposed that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were served, accepted the service but declined to endorse on copies thereof.
9. There has been no explanation why it took the Claimant so long to file an affidavit of service despite his eagerness to prosecute the Cause and/or why no affidavit was filed despite the Court’s misgivings on 17 January 2019.
10. The Court is therefore unable to find that the purported service upon the 1st and 2nd Respondents were satisfactory.
11. The Claimant is directed to serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents afresh.
12. No order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 8th day of November 2019.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Nyabena instructed by Nyabena Nyakundi & Co. Advocates
1st & 2nd Respondents did not appear
For 3rd Respondent Mr. Gikunda instructed by Gikunda Miriti & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey