Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text· [2025] KEELC 4324 (KLR)

Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (Miscellaneous Application E203 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4324 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 May 2025
JKJ. G. Kemei
1,265 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court reinstated a dismissed case because a lawyer missed the hearing, but ordered the law firm to pay Kshs 20,000 within 15 days or lose the reprieve.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, through counsel Ms Fatma Juma of Khatib & Company Advocates, moved the court by a notice of motion dated 17/2/25 seeking stay of proceedings relating to the taxation of a Bill of Costs dated 23/9/22, setting aside of the court's order of 10/2/25 dismissing the applicant's application dated 23/1/24 for non-attendance, and costs. Counsel explained she was attending before another court in ELRC Misc No E103 of 2024 when the matter was called out and dismissed, attributing the non-attendance to a mistake of counsel that should not be visited on an innocent client. The respondent opposed through the affidavit of Mohamed Ferhan Chaudhri, contending the non-attendance could not be excused, citing Tropical Commodities Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd on the seriousness of failure to attend, and arguing that successive stay applications amounted to abuse of process, citing Attorney General v J R K. The court identified a single issue: whether the application was merited. It set out the statutory basis in Order 12 rule 7 and Order 51 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles from Nagle v Fielden and Birkett v James. Noting the application was filed timeously and that counsel owned up to her mistake, the court nonetheless censured the administrative lapses while adopting the merits-oriented approach in Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda. The application was allowed on terms: throw away costs of Kshs 20,000/- payable to the respondent within 15 days, failing which the orders lapse, and the applicant directed to fix the substantive application for hearing expeditiously.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte dismissal order of 10/2/25 should be set aside

Holding

The dismissal order was set aside on terms because the application to set aside was filed timeously and justice favours a hearing on the merits, subject to throw away costs

Reasoning

The court applied Order 12 rule 7 and Order 51 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It noted the dismissal occurred on 10/2/25 and the application was filed on 17/2/25, hence timeous. Although counsel's non-attendance was an administrative lapse that should not be tolerated and the respondent would be prejudiced, the court adopted the principle that disputes should be decided on merits, and granted relief conditional on throw away costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The administration of justice ordinarily requires that disputes be decided on their merits and that errors or lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuing his rights
  • Counsel's administrative lapses in an advocate's office should not be tolerated, and counsel is obligated to attend court for matters fixed for hearing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed but on terms
  2. 2.The applicant shall pay throw away costs in the sum of Kshs 20,000/- to the Respondent within the next 15 days
  3. 3.In default of payment, the orders granted shall lapse automatically
  4. 4.The applicant to fix the application dated 23/1/25 for hearing expeditiously

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 12, rule 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51, rule 15

Cases cited (5)

  • Tropical Commodities Ltd Vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    (2009)
  • The Attorney General VS J R K
    (2009)
  • Nagle V Fielden
    [1966] 2QBD 633
  • Birket Vs James
    [1978] A.C. 297
  • Banco Arabe Espanol V Bank of Uganda
    [1999] 2 EA 22
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction and Order 12 rule 7 and Order 51 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (Miscellaneous Application E203 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4324/eng@2025-05-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.