[2019] KEELRC 1562 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1562 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had been served with the application and ex parte order on 30th July 2018 and had over two months to respond but failed to do so. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the default, either in the supporting affidavit or in court. The alleged misdiarising of the hearing date...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1562 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Otieno Ondola; Respondent: Kisumu County Public Service Board; Respondent: H.E. Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyongo
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 262 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Default Judgment, Judicial Discretion, Failure to File Reply
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Default Judgment Judicial Discretion Failure to File Reply

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Otieno Ondola

Claimant

Kisumu County Public Service Board

Respondent

H.E. Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside ex parte orders granted on 2nd October 2018 due to the respondents' failure to file a response.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided sufficient justification for their default in failing to respond to the application.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the applicants to be heard despite their default.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had been served with the application and ex parte order on 30th July 2018 and had over two months to respond but failed to do so. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the default, either in the supporting affidavit or in court. The alleged misdiarising of the hearing date was not raised at the material time, and the applicants did not act with candour or clean hands. The court held that the applicants did not deserve the exercise of its discretion to set aside the ex parte orders. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit, with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the orders of 2nd October 2018 is dismissed with costs.