[2019] KEELRC 1862 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate that it was not properly served with the Notice of Summons and hearing notices. The evidence on record, including the process server's affidavit and supporting documents, established that service was effected both personally and through post to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1862 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Rosanael Kariue Odero; Respondent: Kentmere (1986) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 67 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Ex Parte Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Terminal Benefits
- 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
Rosanael Kariue Odero
Claimant
Kentmere (1986) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was properly served with summons and hearing notices.
- 2 Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside for lack of service or existence of triable issues.
- 3 Whether the respondent demonstrated any triable issues warranting reopening of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate that it was not properly served with the Notice of Summons and hearing notices. The evidence on record, including the process server's affidavit and supporting documents, established that service was effected both personally and through post to the respondent's official address. The respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the process server's deposition or to show that the persons named were not its employees at the material time. Furthermore, the respondent did not file a draft response or raise any triable issues in its supporting affidavit. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application to set...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Orders
- The application dated 18 December 2018 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
- The monies deposited into court are to be released to the claimant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 67 OF 2014
ROSANAEL KARIUE ODERO CLAIMANT
V
KENTMERE (1986) LIMITED RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Cause herein proceeded as undefended Cause because the Respondent did not enter Appearance and/or file a Response and in a judgment delivered on 9 November 2018, the Court found and held that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unfair.
2. On 18 December 2018, the Respondent filed a motion under certificate of urgency seeking orders
1. …
2. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to grant stay of judgment delivered on 9th November 2018 and all consequential orders thereof pending hearing and determination of this application.
3. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the judgment delivered on 9th November 2018.
3. The Court allowed order (2) on 20 December 2018 on condition that the Respondent deposit the decretal sum into Court before 7 January 2019 (the condition was complied with).
4. The Claimant filed grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit in opposition to the application on 23 January 2019 and the Court took arguments on 25 February 2019 (the Respondent did not file a further affidavit despite leave being granted).
5. The primary order warranting the Court’s examination is the setting aside of the judgment (proposed order 3) and the principal ground advanced in support thereof was that Notice of Summons and the Memorandum of Claim were not served upon the Respondent.
6. It was also asserted that the affidavit of service attesting to service of the Summons upon one Paul Migithi was false as he had ceased being an employee of the Respondent by the alleged date of service.
7. Further, the Respondent contended that it had a defence raising triable issues.
8. In opposing the application, the Claimant asserted that service of Summons was effected, and further that hearing notice(s) were served through post as contemplated by the Rules of this Court.
9. The parties also drew the attention of the Court to case law.
10. The Respondent did not disclose the exact date on which the aforesaid Manager, Paul Migithi left employment.
11. There was also no reference to the deposition by the process server that he was directed to the said Manager by a Receptionist called Caroline.
12. The Respondent did not deny that it had a Receptionist called Caroline at the time that service was said to have been effected. Whether the said Receptionist had also left or was still in employment was also not disclosed. Her affidavit would have been helpful.
13. On service through post, the Court notes that a copy of the Manager’s (Paul Migithi) name/call card was exhibited to the affidavit of service and it gave the Respondent’s postal address as P.O. Box 39508 Nairobi 00623.
14. There is evidence on record that invitation letters to attend before the registry to fix hearing dates and hearing notices were served upon the Respondent through that postal address.
15. The Court will therefore reiterate its finding in the judgment that service of Notice of Summons and hearing notice(s) were served upon the Respondent.
16. A party seeking the setting aside of an ex parte judgment should demonstrate that there are triable issues.
17. The Respondent did not file a draft Response or raise any triable issue through the supporting affidavit.
18. Among the heads of claim which had been presented by the Claimant were balances of admitted terminal benefits which the Respondent had failed to pay. The Respondent did not even attempt to rebut the contention that it owed the Claimant the balances of dues.
19. The Court finds no merit in the application dated 18 December 2018, and orders it dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
20. The monies deposited into Court should be released to the Claimant. Respondent to meet the auctioneer’s charges.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 29th day of March 2019.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Ms. Martins instructed by Oyatta & Associates
For Respondent Mr. Njenga instructed by Macharia Gikonyo & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey