Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2018)· [2018] KEELRC 1923 (KLR)

David Njogu Kimemia v Kenya Association of Professional Counsellors [2018] KEELRC 1923 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 May 2018
736 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court set aside a default judgment because the defendant was never properly served, giving it a second chance to defend the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2018 seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment entered by Makau J on 1st December 2017 and for leave to defend the Claimant's claim. The application was supported by an affidavit of the Respondent's Executive Director, Elias Gikundi, who deponed that court process was served on one Mike Wetoyi, a cleaner/office assistant not authorized to receive service, who never brought the documents to his attention. The Claimant opposed, noting his advocates had written a demand letter before filing suit and had notified the Respondent of the judgment by letter dated 3rd February 2018. The court framed a single issue: whether the Respondent had made out a case for setting aside the ex parte judgment. Applying Shah v Mbogo, Ndolo J held the discretion to set aside exists to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist deliberate obstruction. The court found service was effected on an unauthorized person and that the Executive Director's averment of no notice was unrebutted. On the defence, the court applied Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services, holding a defence on merits need not succeed, only raise triable issues. The court set aside the ex parte judgment and granted the Respondent leave to defend the claim, with the costs of the application to abide the outcome of the retrial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte judgment of 1st December 2017 should be set aside

Holding

The judgment was set aside because service was defective (effected on an unauthorized Office Assistant) and the Respondent's assertion of no notice was unrebutted, and the Respondent demonstrated a defence raising triable issues.

Reasoning

The court applied the Shah v Mbogo test, holding the discretion should be exercised to avoid injustice from excusable mistake rather than to reward deliberate obstruction. Service on a cleaner/office assistant not authorized to receive process was ineffective. The Executive Director's claim of no prior notice stood uncontradicted. Under Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services, a defence need not succeed; it suffices that it raises triable issues. Both limbs favored setting aside.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment is intended to avoid injustice or hardship from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist deliberate obstruction or delay
  • In exercising the discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment, the court should consider each case on its own facts and circumstances
  • A defence on merits need not be a defence that must succeed; it is sufficient that it raises triable issues

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ex parte judgment entered on 1st December 2017 is set aside
  2. 2.The Respondent is granted leave to defend the Claimant's claim
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the retrial

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules (Order 5 Rule 3)Order 5 Rule 3

Cases cited (3)

  • Shah v Mbogo & another
    [1967] EA 116
  • Morris & Company Limited v Victoria Minerals & Chemicals Limited & another
    [2007] eKLR
  • Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to set aside ex parte judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Njogu Kimemia v Kenya Association of Professional Counsellors [2018] KEELRC 1923 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1923/eng@2018-05-31

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