Transport Workers Union v Puma Wholsesalers Limited [2015] KEELRC 1634 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to overturn a judgment where a lawyer missed the hearing, ruling that forgetting to diary a date is not a valid excuse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether inadvertent failure by counsel to diarize a hearing date is a ground for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010
It is not; the ground is weak, frivolous and vexatious, and the applicant's advocate was personally served with the hearing notice and reminded by email.
The Court found the applicant's advocate had been personally served with the hearing notice for 7th October 2014 and had also been reminded by email. The advocate also failed to take a hearing date fixed for 16th December 2013, so the claimant took the date ex parte. The excuse of failure to diarize was described as unheard of and spurious, and Rule 32 provides no such ground for review.
Whether the application was brought expeditiously
No; the delay of almost two months after delivery of judgment, and over four months after the ex parte hearing, was inordinate and unexplained.
The Court noted the ex parte hearing occurred on 7th October 2014 but the application was filed on 30th January 2015, more than four months later. Judgment was delivered on 4th December 2014 and the application came almost two months later. The delay was unexplained, hence inordinate, and the application was intended only to delay enjoyment of the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 does not provide for review of the Court's decision on the ground of counsel's failure to diarize a hearing date, particularly where the advocate was properly served with the hearing notice.
- An application for review or setting aside of judgment must be brought expeditiously, and an inordinate unexplained delay defeats it.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Claimant / Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent review jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Transport Workers Union v Puma Wholsesalers Limited [2015] KEELRC 1634 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1634/eng@2015-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.