Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No. 156 of 2017 (Formerly Cause No. 481 of 2016 (Nakuru))· [2018] KEELRC 2578 (KLR)

Richard Derick Nyane v Western Steel Mills Ltd & another [2018] KEELRC 2578 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
26 September 2018
MMM. Mbaru
429 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court halted judgment because the defendants were never properly notified of the case against them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a direction ruling rather than a final judgment in an employment cause by Richard Derick Nyane against Western Steel Mills Ltd and Jokali Handling Services Ltd, originally filed at Nakuru as Cause No. 481 of 2016 and transferred to Eldoret. Upon retreating to write judgment, the court identified procedural lapses requiring resolution before judgment could be delivered. First, although summons were served and an affidavit of service filed, the process server failed to clarify who received the summons and for which of the two respondents. Second, when the file was moved from Nakuru to Eldoret in June 2017, the Deputy Registrar was directed to notify the parties, but no such notice appeared on file, and the Deputy Registrar did not attend as directed. The court found no evidence that the respondents had received notification of the changes, holding that proceeding to judgment would procedurally serve injustice, since a court of justice must ensure the employer is aware of ongoing proceedings. The court accordingly withheld the judgment, put proceedings in abeyance, and directed that both respondents be served with mention notices to attend at Eldoret for directions. The matter was set for mention on 30th October 2018. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of summons where there are two respondents

Holding

Service was defective because the process server did not clarify who received the summons and for which respondent

Reasoning

The affidavit of service did not clarify which of the two respondents was served and by whom service was received. Given this ambiguity, proceeding to judgment would risk condemning a party unaware of the proceedings, contrary to the court's duty to serve equity and fair hearing.

p. 2
02

Notification of transfer of file between registries

Holding

There was no evidence the respondents were notified of the movement of the file from Nakuru to Eldoret, necessitating that proceedings be brought to their attention

Reasoning

The court had directed on 21st June 2017 that the parties be notified of the transfer of the file to Eldoret, and the Deputy Registrar to notify them. No such notice was on file. The court inferred the respondents were unaware of the proceedings and put the judgment and proceedings in abeyance pending service of mention notices.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of justice must ensure an employer/defendant is aware of proceedings ongoing before the court before judgment is entered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment due in the matter shall not be delivered
  2. 2.Proceedings are put in abeyance until the respondents are served with a mention notice to attend proceedings at Eldoret
  3. 3.Both respondents to be served with mention notices to attend for court directions
  4. 4.Matter to be mentioned in 30 days, on 30th October 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Richard Derick Nyane v Western Steel Mills Ltd & another [2018] KEELRC 2578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 156 of 2017 (Formerly Cause No. 481 of 2016 (Nakuru)). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2578/eng@2018-09-26

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