Peter Maina Mwaniki v PCEA Silanga High School & another [2015] KEELRC 713 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court revoked a lawyer-awarded cost order after finding the claimant had misled it, and penalised the respondent's lawyer for causing delays.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Credibility of the Claimant's claim to be a serving probation officer in Marsabit
The Court found the Claimant's credibility questionable, noting he had been dismissed in 2013 yet held himself out as a serving probation officer, and had a related suit (Industrial Cause No. 2311 of 2014) challenging his termination
The Claimant asserted he was still a probation officer despite a letter from the Ministry of Interior confirming separation effective 23rd November 2013. In pleadings in a separate cause he admitted being taken off the payroll in December 2013 and challenged his termination, contradicting his stance in this cause. His taxi receipts from a Thika-based vehicle were implausible for travel to Marsabit.
Conduct of the Respondent and its counsel in relation to the adjournment
The Court found counsel deliberately delayed the matter by allowing witnesses to leave without permission, justifying costs consequences against him personally
The Respondent's witnesses left the Court precincts without permission, precipitating the adjournment. The Court found counsel was out to delay the matter and that Mr. Julius Mbuthia Maina had been tampering with witnesses. The Court therefore recalled the costs order in the Claimant's favour and personally visited the adjournment fees on counsel.
Legal principles established
#- A party who obtains interim costs orders through misleading the Court risks having those orders recalled and vacated
- Counsel who occasion adjournments through improper handling of witnesses may be ordered to personally bear adjournment fees and face professional discipline
Court orders
#- 1.The order for payment of Kshs. 15,000/- expenses to the Claimant made on 4th May 2015 is recalled and vacated
- 2.In its place the Respondent's counsel is ordered to personally pay Court adjournment fees of Kshs. 400/- for the adjournment he sought
- 3.Respondent's counsel warned against unprofessional conduct, failing which a direct complaint will be made to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society
- 4.The application allowed to the extent of the variation of the orders
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Industrial Cause); review of the Court's own orders of 4th May 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Maina Mwaniki v PCEA Silanga High School & another [2015] KEELRC 713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 1 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/713/eng@2015-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.