[2012] KEELRC 241 (KLR)
The court found that although the claimant filed the replying affidavit late, the objector had also benefited from delays through extensions of interim orders staying execution. The court determined that admitting the late affidavit would not prejudice the objector, as both parties had already experienced delays....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEELRC 241 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Raphael Musyoka Ngumbi; Respondent: Paem Agencies Company Limited; Applicant: Raphael Kioko Kithuku t/a Rakjom & Company Investments
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 208 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Admission of Late Replying Affidavit
- Outcome
- Claimant's late replying affidavit admitted; application to proceed expeditiously.
- Legal Topics
- Admission of Late Affidavit, Extension of Time, Stay of Execution
- 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
Raphael Musyoka Ngumbi
Claimant
Paem Agencies Company Limited
Respondent
Raphael Kioko Kithuku t/a Rakjom & Company Investments
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Admission of Late Replying Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant's replying affidavit filed out of time should be admitted to the record.
- 2 Whether the objector would suffer prejudice if the late affidavit is admitted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the claimant filed the replying affidavit late, the objector had also benefited from delays through extensions of interim orders staying execution. The court determined that admitting the late affidavit would not prejudice the objector, as both parties had already experienced delays. The overriding consideration was to facilitate the just, expeditious, and fair determination of the matter. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to admit the claimant's replying affidavit and directed that the application proceed without further delay.
Court Disposition
Claimant's late replying affidavit admitted; application to proceed expeditiously.
Orders
- The claimant's replying affidavit filed on 13-3-2012 is admitted to the record.
- The application to proceed within 3 weeks from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
INDUSTRIAL COURT NAIROBI
CAUSE 208 OF 2010
RAPHAEL MUSYOKA NGUMBI...........................................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PAEM AGENCIES COMPANY LIMITED........................................................................................RESPONDENT
AND
RAPHAEL KIOKO KITHUKU T/A RAKJOM & COMPANY INVESTMENTS...........OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
RULING
On 13-2-2012 this suit came up for hearing of the Objector’s Notice of Motion dated 9-12-2011. The Applicant was ready to proceed but the Claimant was not ready to proceed because he had not filed his replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion.
He sought leave and the same was granted for only 14 days. The leave lapsed on 20-2-2012.
When the Motion came up for hearing again on the day scheduled on 14-3-2012, the Claimant informed the court that he filed replying affidavit late and sought leave of the court to have the replying affidavit filed on 13-3-2012 admitted.
The objection vehemently objected the request arguing that the said affidavit should not have been filed before first seeking leave to extend the time.
The claimant contented that the objector had also benefited from several extensions of interim orders which stays execution of the Claimant’s decree.
I have perused the court record and considered the submission by the two parties. I have also noted how that small objection has caused much delay in the conclusion of this matter. Everybody has paid the cost of waiting for several months.
It is obvious that the damage has been done of delaying the matter. I see no more prejudice in granting the request to have the Claimant’s replying affidavit admitted in the record.
The admission will not prejudice the objector because he has also benefited from the stay of execution for over 14 days. I, therefore direct the application to proceed with speed and not later than 3 weeks from the date hereof.
Orders accordingly.
DATEDand DELIVERED at Nairobi this 5th day of October, 2012.
Onesmus Makau
JUDGE