[2019] KEELRC 1478 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to provide any explanation for the 11-month delay in bringing the application for review, which constituted inordinate delay. Additionally, the claimant did not file or serve submissions within the agreed timelines, only serving the respondent two months after judgment had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1478 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Kibe Kahwai; Respondent: MMA Engineering Services Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2527 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment as to Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Award of Costs, Procedural Timelines
- 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
Simon Kibe Kahwai
Applicant
MMA Engineering Services Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment as to Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review and vary its judgment to award costs to the claimant due to an alleged error on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the delay of 11 months in filing the review application was justified.
- 3 Whether failure to file submissions within the agreed timeline justified denial of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to provide any explanation for the 11-month delay in bringing the application for review, which constituted inordinate delay. Additionally, the claimant did not file or serve submissions within the agreed timelines, only serving the respondent two months after judgment had been delivered. The court held that these failures did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and did not justify the exercise of discretion to review or vary the judgment as to costs. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated 1 April 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2527 OF 2012
SIMON KIBE KAHWAI............................................CLAIMANT
v
MMA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD...........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2018, the Court declined to award the Claimant costs because he had failed to file his submissions before judgment.
2. On 12 April 2019, the Claimant filed a motion seeking orders
1. This Honourable Court be pleased to review and/or vary the judgment in the matter hereof as relates to costs and proceed to award costs of the Claim to the Claimant/Applicant.
2. The costs of this application be provided for.
3. Despite being served with the application, the Respondent did not bother to file a response or appear during the hearing on 30 May 2019.
4. The main ground relied on by the Claimant in support of the application was that there was an error apparent on the face of the record when the Court declined to award costs on the basis that he had not filed his submissions.
5. According to the Claimant, any lapse was on the part of the Registry which failed to place the submissions on the file.
6. The Court has considered the application, the grounds and affidavit in support thereof, and come to the conclusion that the application be declined because of the following reasons.
7. One, the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered about 11 months before the instant application was filed.
8. There was absolutely no explanation why it took such a long time to bring the application.
9. In the view of the Court, the 11 months amounted to inordinate delay which merited explanation.
10. Two, the Court had agreed timelines with the parties for the filing of submissions and towards this end, the Claimant was expected to file and serve his submissions on or before 4 May 2018 while the Respondent was to file its submissions on or before 19 May 2018, ahead of the judgment.
11. The Claimant did not file submissions by the agreed timeline of 4 May 2018, but now contends that the submissions were filed on 15 May 2018.
12. In its submissions filed on 16 May 2018, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not served it with his submissions by the time it was filing its submissions (it appears that the Claimant served the Respondent with the submissions on 5 July 2018 – 2 months after judgment had been delivered).
13. The fact that the Claimant served the Respondent with submissions about 2 months after judgment is telling.
14. In the view of the Court, and the Court so holds, the Claimant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour.
15. The motion dated 1 April 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 31st day of May 2019.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Wachira instructed by E.M. Wachira & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Punja & Kagongona Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey