[2018] KEELRC 644 (KLR)
The court held that while adherence to procedural timelines is important for effective case management, denying a party the right to defend a suit solely on the basis of late filing would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objective of the law. The court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent's late...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 644 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen M. Kienjeku; Respondent: UAP Old Mutual Group
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1524 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Strike Out Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Late Filing of Defence, Striking Out Pleadings, Right to Be Heard, Case Management
- 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
Stephen M. Kienjeku
Applicant
UAP Old Mutual Group
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's statement of defence should be struck out for being filed out of time.
- 2 Whether the late filing of the defence prejudices the claimant or amounts to an abuse of court process.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to allow the late defence in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while adherence to procedural timelines is important for effective case management, denying a party the right to defend a suit solely on the basis of late filing would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objective of the law. The court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent's late defence, emphasizing that technicalities should not be used to deny a party the opportunity to be heard. The defence was deemed properly on record, and the claimant was granted the opportunity to respond, ensuring that justice is served to all parties.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The claimant's application to strike out the defence is declined.
- The respondent's defence is deemed properly on record.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
ATNAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1524 OF 2017
(Before Hon. Lady Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa on 25th October 2018)
STEPHEN M. KIENJEKU...............................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
UAP OLD MUTUAL GROUP..................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Application before Court is the Claimant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 17/5/2018 and filed in Court on 21/5/2018 filed under Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, Order 2 Rule 15(1) (c) and (d), and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and all other enabling laws of Kenya.
2. The Claimant seek order to strike out the Statement of Defence filed in Court out of time and for Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant as prayed in the Statement of Claim.
3. The Claimant contends that the Defence is evasive and may prejudice, embarrass and/or delay the fair trial of the action. The Applicant contends that the claim was filed on 3. 8.2017.
4. The Respondents were served with the claim and summons to enter appearance on 16/8/2017. The Respondents entered appearance on 22/8/2017. The Applicant aver that the Respondents failed to file a defence within 21 days of service.
5. The Respondents opposed this Application. They aver that sometimes in July 2015 there was a merge between UAP Holdings and Old Mutual Holdings Limited, which resulted in the termination of the Claimant.
6. Then in late 2016 and early 2017 the Respondent reviewed its operations and structures with a view to improve its performance. They aver that various changes took place in Respondents structures which resulted in redundancies which affected the Claimant.
7. In relation to this case they aver that they instructed their Counsel Couslon Harney LLP Advocates to act on its behalf and they entered appearance on 22. 8.2017 and filed a Statement of Defence on 26. 1.2018.
8. They admit filing the defence late but deny that the same is frivolous or vexatious as it raises relevant and material issues. They seek that the Court allows their defence filed late so that justice can be administered to all without undue regard to technicalities.
9. I have examined the averments of both Parties. I believe filing of pleadings within strict timelines is good practice, which aids in case management.
10. I also believe that it would not however be fair to deny a Party a chance to defend suit on account of late filing of pleadings. This is a technicality, which should not be unduly relied upon by the Court to deny a Party a chance to be heard.
11. I decline to allow the application and deem the defence filed to be properly on record. The Claimant will have a chance to respond to it so that justice is done to all.
12. Costs in the cause.
Dated and delivered in open Court this 25th day of October, 2018.
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Bwire holding brief for Arunga for Claimant
Akal holding brief for Omondi for Respondent