David Muriuki Ngare v Spin Knit Limited [2016] KEELRC 881 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

22 July 2016

RSRadido Stephen

325 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

If you skip a court hearing in Kenya without explanation, the judge can close your case and decide against you without hearing your side.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This short ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru, delivered by Radido Stephen J on 22 July 2016, deals with a procedural impasse in a Cause whose hearing had been repeatedly delayed. The Claimant's case had been closed on 14 April 2015, and settlement negotiations directed by the Court came to nothing. The Claimant's advocate sought to withdraw on 24 April 2015, and despite several mentions to confirm instruction of new counsel, a Notice of Change was only filed on 3 March 2016. On 26 February 2016 the Court fixed the Respondent's case for hearing on 13 July 2016, a date fixed in the presence of the Respondent's advocate. When the Cause was called on 13 July 2016, the Claimant was ready to proceed but the Respondent was unrepresented; the file was stood aside to 10.35 am, by which time the Claimant had also left court. Finding no explanation for either side's non-attendance, and noting that finalisation of the Cause had been frustrated by the Claimant's failure to instruct an advocate, the Court ordered that the Respondent's case be deemed closed and directed that it would proceed to prepare and deliver judgment. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

Closure of a non-attending party's case

Holding

The Respondent's case was deemed closed for want of attendance and lack of explanation, despite the hearing date having been fixed in the presence of its advocate.

Reasoning

The hearing date of 13 July 2016 had been fixed in the presence of the Respondent's advocate on 26 February 2016. On the hearing date neither party was represented or present, and no explanation was offered for the Respondent's advocate's absence. The Court, having noted the delay in finalising the Cause, found itself constrained to close the Respondent's case and proceed to judgment so the dispute could be finalised.

p. 1

Absence of explanation for non-representation

Holding

The failure to instruct or attend through counsel without explanation weighed against the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Court observed that a Notice of Change had been filed by a new firm of advocates on 3 March 2016, yet there was no explanation why the Claimant had no representation on the hearing date. Equally, no explanation was given for the Respondent's advocate's absence. Both failures contributed to the delay in finalising the Cause.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Where a party fails to attend court on a hearing date fixed in the presence of its advocate and offers no explanation, the court may deem its case closed and proceed to judgment.

Court orders

1.The Respondent's case deemed closed
2.The Court to embark on preparation and delivery of judgment

Jurisdiction invoked: Not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Muriuki Ngare v Spin Knit Limited [2016] KEELRC 881 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/881/eng@2016-07-22

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