Sylvester Oduor Oyile v Primefuels (Kenya) Limted [2019] KEELRC 2104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court reinstated a worker's suit after it was wrongly closed based on a judgment that had already been set aside.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the orders of 17.04.2018 closing the suit should be reviewed and set aside
Yes. The orders were founded on an error apparent on the record: the respondent's counsel represented that a judgment of Mbaru J of 13.06.2013 had determined the suit, whereas that judgment had been set aside on review on 07.04.2014. The application for review therefore succeeded.
The court found that the 17.04.2018 orders rested on the misapprehension that the prior judgment still stood. The respondent did not deny the applicant's account that the judgment in the previous suit had been set aside. Since the closure of the file was based on that erroneous premise, the review jurisdiction under the ELRC Procedure Rules was properly engaged and the orders fell to be set aside.
Whether the claimant's non-attendance on 17.04.2018 justified the orders
The court declined to decide this, because the orders made were not a dismissal for want of the claimant's presence but a closure of the file as determined on merits.
The respondent argued that the claimant's failure to diarise the hearing was not sufficient justification and that litigation must come to an end, terminal dues having been settled. The court held it need not address the sufficiency of the reasons because the orders were not a dismissal for non-attendance; they proceeded on the erroneous view that the suit had already been determined.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court's order rests on an error apparent on the record - such as treating a suit as determined by a judgment that had in fact been set aside on review - the order will be reviewed and set aside.
- Orders closing a suit on the basis that it was erroneously set down, rather than dismissal for want of prosecution, are not to be tested against the sufficiency of the party's reason for absence.
Court orders
#- 1.The orders given by Nduma J in this suit on 17.04.2018 are reviewed and set aside
- 2.The suit is reinstated and parties are invited to take directions towards expeditious hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; sections 3, 12(3)(viii), 16 and 29(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; rules 17(1), (2), (3) and 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sylvester Oduor Oyile v Primefuels (Kenya) Limted [2019] KEELRC 2104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (former Civil Cause No. 340 of 2012 referred to; present suit filed 28.04.2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2104/eng@2019-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.