Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of motion dated 5th October 2019 (suit number not stated in judgment)· [2020] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)

Osiko v Isiolo Teachers Sacco Society Limited (Cause 20 of 2018) [2020] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 March 2020
849 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to reinstate a suit dismissed after non-attendance, because litigants cannot assume courts sit at their usual venue.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant moved by notice of motion dated 5th October 2019 seeking to set aside orders of 3rd October 2019 dismissing the suit for non-attendance, and to have the suit reinstated for hearing on the merits. Counsel for the Claimant explained that he had not previously appeared before this court, expected it to sit in CM's Court 2, whereas it sat at the ELC Court, and asserted the Claimant was within the court precincts. The Respondent opposed, submitting that no compelling reasons were advanced and that the supporting affidavits did not show the necessary grounds. The court framed the question as whether grounds existed to exercise its discretion to set aside the dismissal. It applied the principles in Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd [1974] EA 75 and Shah v Mbogo [1967] EA 166: the discretion is wide and meant to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, but not to assist deliberate obstruction or delay. Holding that a dismissal terminating the suit stands on the same footing as an ex-parte judgment, the court found the non-attendance was neither inadvertence nor an excusable mistake, observed that parties cannot assume the court sits at its usual place and that announcements are made each morning at Meru Law Courts, and noted the applicant had not demonstrated he was in the court premises. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance should be set aside and the suit reinstated

Holding

The application was dismissed; the non-attendance was not shown to be inadvertence or an excusable mistake and the applicant did not demonstrate he was within the court premises

Reasoning

The court applied the discretionary principles in Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd and Shah v Mbogo, which confine setting aside to avoiding injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, and exclude parties deliberately obstructing justice. Because a dismissal terminates the suit, the same footing applies. Announcements are made each morning at Meru Law Courts as to where courts sit, so parties cannot assume the usual venue. The applicant did not demonstrate he was in the premises.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The court's discretion to set aside an ex-parte order or judgment is wide but intended to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist a party who deliberately obstructs or delays the course of justice
  • Litigants cannot assume the court is sitting at its usual place; dismissal for non-attendance where the party has not demonstrated presence in the court premises will not be set aside on grounds of inadvertence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's notice of motion dated 5th October 2019 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [1967] EA 166
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretionary power of the court to set aside its own orders (discretionary jurisdiction under the court's rules; no specific provision cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Osiko v Isiolo Teachers Sacco Society Limited (Cause 20 of 2018) [2020] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of motion dated 5th October 2019 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1946/eng@2020-03-04

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