Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELRC 2160 (KLR)

Robert Nyagwansa Miruka v Presbyterian University of East Africa [2019] KEELRC 2160 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 February 2019
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,114 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court let an employer file its defence nearly two years late, ruling that courts should not lock parties out of justice when delays cause no real prejudice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant, through a Notice of Motion filed on 25 September 2018, sought extension of time to file a Response to the Claimant's Memorandum of Claim, supported by the affidavit of its Human Resource Manager, Mugao Domenic, who attributed the failure to an administrative mix-up in the Respondent's offices, arguing the omission was neither deliberate nor intentional and that no prejudice would befall the Claimant. The Claimant opposed, noting service of the Summons to Enter Appearance and Memorandum of Claim on 24 March 2017 and a Mention Notice, and contending the Respondent was indolent; he further submitted that default judgment had been entered and set down for formal proof, that the draft defence was a mere denial raising no triable issues, and that the application was an abuse of process. He relied on Chidunga v Cargill Kenya Limited, Nderitu v Ghika, Makasembo v KNUT-Post Primary and the Supreme Court's Salat decision on extension of time. The court found the delay since service on 24 March 2017 was indeed inordinate, but held that locking the Respondent out on account of its own mistakes, absent great prejudice to the Claimant, would be unjust. The Claimant retains the right to reply to the Response and to test the Respondent's evidence at trial. The court exercised its discretion, allowed the application, directed the Respondent to file its Response within 14 days, gave the Claimant 14 days upon service to respond, and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file a Response despite inordinate delay

Holding

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the Respondent despite the inordinate delay, finding no great prejudice to the Claimant.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the inordinate delay since service on 24 March 2017 but held that locking out the Respondent would be an injustice. The Claimant retains the ability to reply to the Response and to test the Respondent's evidence at hearing, so prejudice is minimal. Discretion was therefore exercised to allow the application with a 14-day filing window.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party should not be locked out of justice on account of its own mistakes where the other party suffers no great prejudice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application allowed; Respondent directed to file its Response within 14 days
  2. 2.Claimant to have a chance to respond within 14 days upon service
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016Rule 15(3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Chaka Nyando Chidunga v Cargill Kenya Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • James Kanyita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghika & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kennedy Makasembo v Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers
    [2017] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016; court's discretion to enlarge time

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert Nyagwansa Miruka v Presbyterian University of East Africa [2019] KEELRC 2160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2160/eng@2019-02-19

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