Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the extract· [2020] KEELRC 1849 (KLR)

Shadrack Mutia Muiu v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1849 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 January 2020
1,448 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court reopened a defence case closed in a party's absence, ruling that a genuine mistake by counsel deserves a hearing—though the party paid costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent brought a Notice of Motion dated 21.6.2019 seeking to set aside an ex parte order made on 20.6.2019 by Hon. Justice Onesmus Makau declaring the defence case closed, and to be allowed to call defence witnesses. The application was supported by affidavits of Beatrice Akuno, Paul Ojwang and George Okinda, contending that the defence believed the hearing was fixed for 2.30 p.m. when the court proceeded at 11.09 a.m. and closed the hearing without hearing defence witnesses. The petitioner opposed, arguing the respondents squandered prior opportunities - his case closed on 15.5.2019, and a previous consent order of 19.6.2019 had already reopened the matter and deemed the defence documents properly on record - and that the respondents simply failed to attend court. The court set out the procedural history and framed a single issue: whether the order of 20.6.2019 should be set aside. Applying the principles in Shah v Mbogo and Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services Ltd, the court found the non-attendance was a genuine mistake by counsel, not a deliberate attempt to delay justice, and that the defence raised triable issues. The court held that the petitioner's prejudice could be compensated by costs. It allowed the application, set aside the order closing the hearing, reopened the defence case for hearing on priority basis, and awarded the petitioner throwaway costs of Kshs. 20,000 payable before the next hearing. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 17 January 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte order closing the defence case should be set aside

Holding

The order was set aside because the respondents' non-attendance was due to a genuine mistake by counsel as to the hearing time, and the defence raised triable issues

Reasoning

The court applied the Shah v Mbogo and Patel principles: the discretion to set aside ex parte orders exists to cure accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake. Counsel misled her witnesses into believing the hearing was at 2.30 p.m. when the record showed otherwise. The defence witness statements and documents, unobjected to on 19.6.2019, raised triable issues, so justice required hearing the defence, with costs compensating the petitioner's prejudice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to set aside ex parte orders is exercised to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, but not to assist a party who deliberately delayed justice
  • The court's discretion to set aside or vary an ex parte judgment is wide and unfettered, its main concern being to do justice between the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order closing the defence hearing on 20.6.2019 is set aside
  2. 2.The defence case is reopened for hearing on priority basis
  3. 3.The respondents to pay the petitioner throwaway costs of Kshs. 20,000 before the next hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • ELRC (Procedure) RulesRules 13(5), 17(3), 28(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41, 43(f), 47, 50, 53(i)(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974]
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [1967] EA 166
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 13(5), 17(3) and 28(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Articles 41, 43(f), 47, 50 and 53(i)(b) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shadrack Mutia Muiu v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1849 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1849/eng@2020-01-17

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