[2020] KEELRC 776 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 776 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent was seeking discretionary orders to stay directions, reopen its case, and substitute a witness. All material facts relied upon by the respondent were known to the parties prior to the hearing date, and the respondent had ample opportunity to act but failed to do so. The respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 776 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Ogutu; Respondent: Postal Corporation of Kenya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 655 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Stay Directions, Re Open Hearing, and Substitute Witness
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Substitution of Witness, Procedural Irregularities, Delay and Indolence
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Adjournment of Hearing Substitution of Witness Procedural Irregularities Delay and Indolence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Ogutu

Claimant

Postal Corporation of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Stay Directions, Re Open Hearing, and Substitute Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has shown sufficient cause to warrant stay of directions and reopening of its case.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to substitute its witness and file a new witness statement at this stage.
  3. 3 Whether procedural technicalities should be disregarded in the circumstances of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was seeking discretionary orders to stay directions, reopen its case, and substitute a witness. All material facts relied upon by the respondent were known to the parties prior to the hearing date, and the respondent had ample opportunity to act but failed to do so. The respondent did not provide a sufficient explanation for its delay, having only moved the court four days before judgment. The court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to indolence and a casual approach to the prosecution of its defence. The invocation of the Civil Procedure Rules, while technically incorrect, did not prejudice the claimant, as the substance of the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The respondent's motion dated 17 February 2020 is dismissed with costs.