Jonah Munyao Musiku v Athi River Mining Limited [2018] KEELRC 2092 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court threw out hearing proceedings because the notice was served on a former advocate instead of the one currently on record.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proper service of hearing notice on the advocate on record
Service on an advocate who had ceased acting was not proper service, making the proceedings of 23rd November 2017 defective
The court reviewed the record and noted changes of advocates: Mohammed Muigai Advocates filed a notice of change on 7th January 2016, and Wambua Musembi Advocates on 25th July 2015 (as recorded). Counsel on record for the respondent was Mohammed Muigai Advocates, yet the hearing notice was served on Manthi Masika & Company Advocates, who had ceased acting. Consequently the respondent was not properly served and the ex parte proceedings could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- Service of a hearing notice must be effected on the advocate currently on record; service on a former advocate is not proper service and renders the proceedings defective
Court orders
#- 1.The proceedings of 23rd November 2017 are vacated
- 2.The case to be fixed for hearing de novo on a date to be fixed in court at the time of the ruling
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (specific provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jonah Munyao Musiku v Athi River Mining Limited [2018] KEELRC 2092 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2092/eng@2018-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.