[2016] KEELRC 614 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents, despite having legal representation, failed to act with diligence in defending the suit. The application to set aside the ex parte judgment was not brought promptly, lacked good faith, and was unsupported by any draft defence or evidence of an arguable case. The 2nd respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 614 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Samuel Maina Gichuhi; Respondent: Nature Pharmacy Ltd; Respondent: Dr. Ndubai Ngeera
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2007 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Delay in Filing Defence, Right to Be Heard, Exercise of Discretion
- 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
Samuel Maina Gichuhi
Claimant
Nature Pharmacy Ltd
Respondent
Dr. Ndubai Ngeera
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte judgment delivered on 12th February 2016 should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be granted leave to file a defence out of time.
- 3 Whether the 2nd respondent should be struck out as a party to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, despite having legal representation, failed to act with diligence in defending the suit. The application to set aside the ex parte judgment was not brought promptly, lacked good faith, and was unsupported by any draft defence or evidence of an arguable case. The 2nd respondent's request to be struck out as a party was not substantiated by any disclosure of his relationship with the 1st respondent. The court held that the right to be heard must be balanced against the claimant's right to expeditious justice, and in this case, the equities favored allowing the claimant to enjoy the fruits of his judgment. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Orders
- The application dated 22nd June 2016 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2007 OF 2013
SAMUEL MAINA GICHUHI……..….......................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
NATURE PHARMACY LTD &…………......………1ST RESPONDENT
DR. NDUBAI NGEERA…………….............………2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The 2nd respondent Dr Ndubai Ngeera by a notice of motion application dated 22nd June 2016, seeks the exparte judgement delivered on 12th February 2016 be set aside and the suit be re-admitted for hearing inter parties. That the respondents be given leave to file a defence and the 2nd respondent be struck out as a party in this cause.
2. The application is based on the grounds set out on the face of the application and in the supporting affidavit of the 2nd respondent as follows;
i. The respondent had engaged services of the firm of M/s Mutua Muthuva & Co Advocates to act for them in the matter.
ii. That the advocate failed to execute the instructions of the respondent and the omission should not be visited upon the respondents.
iii. That the respondent s came to know that the matter was heard ex-parte and judgement granted on 21st June 2016 when the 2nd respondent perused the court file and was shocked to learn that the matter had been finalized.
3. The claimant filed grounds of opposition on 8th July 2010 stating that the application lacks merit and is a clear attempt at obfuscation of issues. That there are laches in bringing the application and the maximum delay defeats equity is applicable in the circumstance of the case.
4. The 2nd respondent has not shown any authority under seal to act for the 1st respondent in the matter and has not disclosed his relationship with the 1st respondent. The application therefore lacks candour and has not been brought with full disclosure and good faith. The 1st respondent clearly did not bother to follow his case until it was concluded. That equity only aids the vigilant and not the indolent. This is a case of a mistake by both the counsel and the litigant and the application be dismissed with costs.
5. The 2nd respondent sought leave to act in person which leave was granted on 30th June 2016 pursuant to a consent filed by Mutua Muthuve & Co Advocates to cease to act for the respondents. The suit was filed on 17th December 2013 and served on the respondent on 16th January 2014. A return of service by an authorized process server was filed in court on 23rd January 2014.
6. The advocates for the respondent did not file any defence to the claim inspite attending court on the date the matter proceeded to formal proof on 22nd October 2015. There is no indication from the 2nd respondent that he followed up this matter with his advocate or personally since he received the summons on 16th January 2014.
7. The respondents were clearly indolent inspite of having an advocate on record. It was not until 21st June 2010 when the 2nd respondent came to court to follow up the matter only to find that judgement was delivered, decree issued and a bill of costs was pending taxation. This is not a case of the advocate sleeping on the job, but the respondent did little if at all to ensure that the suit was properly defended. The claimant has waited for about two and half years since he filed this suit to get the suit heard and determined.
8. It is the court’s view that the right of the respondents to be heard must be weighed against the right of the claimant to have expeditious justice done on his case. The respondent has not filed a draft defence to show that it has an arguable defence against the suit. Instead the 2nd respondent seeks to be struck off the suit so that the 1st respondent whose relationship with him he has not disclosed, be left to defend the suit. There is no indication that the 1st respondent is still operational and is ready and willing to defend the suit. In short the respondent only wants to be out of the suit to defeat the claim before the court. The remedy sought is discretionary which discretion must be exercised judiciously.
9. It is the court’s considered view that this application has not been brought timeously, the same has not been brought in good faith and it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that he has an arguable defence against the suit.
10. It is equitable and in the interest of justice to let the claimant enjoy the fruits of his judgement. Consequently, the application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of September, 2016
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE