Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2014] KEELRC 822 (KLR)

Caleb Kibaara Mathenge and 3 others v Stage Mattresses Limited [2014] KEELRC 822 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
28 February 2014
BOByram Ongaya
1,191 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

#

Kenya's Industrial Court set aside a 'settled' order because the workers never agreed to it in court, and their case will now be heard afresh.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants applied for review of an order by which their employment dispute was marked as settled, contending that no settlement documents had been tabled, that the respondent's counsel had misled the court, and that the dispute should be heard on the merits, particularly as the 1st claimant's evidence had already been taken. They invoked section 26 of the Labour Institutions Act 2007, Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 and section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011. The respondent opposed, arguing that the claimants and their advocates were absent when the settlement was recorded on 4.6.2012, that payment vouchers through the Ministry of Labour showed compliance, and that the application was incompetent as it targeted a non-existent order of 9.10.2012. Reviewing the record, the court found that the respondent had not filed the report from the Nakuru District Labour Officer ordered on 3.5.2012, that payment vouchers did not amount to such a report, and that in the absence of affidavits of service it could not be said the claimants were party to the settlement order. The court held the settlement order was ambiguous, especially since the 1st claimant's evidence had been taken with nothing said about continued hearing, and that the parties had a legitimate expectation of a full hearing and judgment. Invoking Article 50 of the Constitution, the court allowed the review, set aside the order of 4.6.2012, and directed that the claimants' case commence afresh, with each party bearing its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the order marking the matter settled

Holding

The order of 4.6.2012 marking the matter settled was vague and did not validly determine the suit

Reasoning

The 1st claimant's evidence had already been taken and nothing was ordered about the continued hearing. The respondent did not file the report from the Nakuru District Labour Officer as ordered on 3.5.2012; the payment vouchers did not amount to such a report. The claimants were absent on 4.6.2012 and no affidavits of service showed they were party to the settlement order, so presuming the suit was validly determined would amount to manifest injustice.

p. 2
02

Right to fair hearing under Article 50

Holding

Review was warranted to protect the claimants' right to a fair and public hearing

Reasoning

The court weighed the parties' failure to extract the relevant orders against substantive justice, holding that justice favours orders that further justice. It invoked Article 50 of the Constitution to protect the claimants' right to have the dispute decided in a fair and public hearing, and allowed the review despite the procedural irregularity in the application.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit cannot be treated as validly determined by settlement where the claimants were absent and no affidavits of service show they were party to the order
  • Parties to a part-heard suit have a legitimate expectation of a full hearing and determination by judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order made on 4.6.2012 ('In view of the payments the matter is settled') is set aside
  2. 2.The hearing of the claimants' case shall commence afresh
  3. 3.The parties shall bear their own costs of the application
  4. 4.Parties to fix a mention date for directions on the hearing and for fixing a hearing date convenient to the parties and the court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Institutions Actsection 26
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010Rule 32
  • Industrial Court Actsection 16
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 26 of the Labour Institutions Act 2007, Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 and section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Caleb Kibaara Mathenge and 3 others v Stage Mattresses Limited [2014] KEELRC 822 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/822/eng@2014-02-28

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