Kenya Union of Commercial, Food, and Allied Workers Union v Mombasa Water Supply and Sanitation Company & another [2015] KEELRC 31 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer that missed its own hearing due to confusion between its old and new lawyers could not undo the award against it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Award delivered in the absence of the 1st Respondent should be set aside and the hearing reopened
The application was rejected; the 1st Respondent failed to show good grounds for reopening.
The hearing date was taken in open Court and the previous Advocates had notice of the accurate date. The misinformation arose from the 1st Respondent's failure to obtain accurate handover information and to serve a Notice of Change on the Claimant. The 1st Respondent's assertion that it believed the hearing was for 'the week commencing 16th March 2015' demonstrated lack of seriousness. Further, the decision under challenge fully considered the 1st Respondent's Response, Pleadings and evidence, and it had an opportunity to file Closing Submissions.
Whether the underlying Award was made after a fair hearing notwithstanding the 1st Respondent's absence
Yes; the Award took into account the 1st Respondent's position after adequate opportunity.
The Court had considered the Response filed by the 1st Respondent, evaluated the evidence and pleadings in their entirety, found that while there were no valid reasons for termination the procedure was fair, and granted the 1st Respondent an opportunity to file Closing Submissions which it did not take. The matter was old, had been through conciliation, and both parties had had full opportunity to state their positions.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking to reopen proceedings for non-attendance must demonstrate good grounds; miscommunication between its own successive law firms is not a good ground.
- Matters are scheduled on a specific date, not for a week commencing on a particular date; a party relying on vague information must seek clarification.
- A Notice of Change of Advocates must be served on the other party; failure to do so reflects a lackadaisical attitude to the litigation.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application by the 1st Respondent dated 1st September 2015 seeking to reopen proceedings is rejected with no order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own proceedings (no specific provision cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food, and Allied Workers Union v Mombasa Water Supply and Sanitation Company & another [2015] KEELRC 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/31/eng@2015-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.