Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMotion dated 10 March 2022 (arising from judgment adopted on 10 March 2022 in Odhiambo Owiti & Co. Advocates v Equator Bottlers Ltd)· [2022] KEELRC 177 (KLR)

Odhiambo Owiti & Co Advocates v Equator Bottlers Ltd [2022] KEELRC 177 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 April 2022
767 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

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed Equator Bottlers' attempt to overturn a costs ruling, confirming that advocates holding brief must be ready to argue cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu dismissed a Motion by Equator Bottlers Ltd seeking review of orders made on 10 March 2022, by which the Court had adopted as its judgment a certificate of costs in High Court Misc Civil Cause No. 156 of 2020, Odhiambo Owiti & Co. Advocates v Equator Bottlers Ltd. The applicant advanced three grounds: the earlier application had been listed for mention rather than hearing; its advocate present was only holding brief and thus the party was not heard; and its submissions were not considered. The advocate opposed, contending the application did not meet the review threshold under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court first observed that reliance on Order 45 was misplaced, since the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 govern review in that Court. On the merits, the record showed parties had been directed on 8 October 2021 and 23 November 2021 to file and exchange responses and submissions; both filed submissions, and on 10 March 2022 the matter came for further orders or directions, whereupon the Court delivered its Ruling. The Court found the mention argument disingenuous and an afterthought, held that an advocate holding brief must be ready to argue the case, and noted the Ruling expressly stated it had considered the submissions on record. The Motion was dismissed with further costs to the advocate. Delivered virtually, signed at Kisumu on 27 April 2022 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the review threshold under the applicable rules was met

Holding

The review application failed to meet the threshold and was without merit

Reasoning

The Court examined its own record and found that parties had been directed on multiple occasions to file and exchange responses and submissions, both before the High Court and before itself. Having filed submissions, the applicant could not claim it was not heard. The claim that the matter was listed for mention was found to be an afterthought.

p. 2
02

Whether an advocate holding brief deprives a party of a hearing

Holding

No - a holding-brief advocate must be ready to argue the case

Reasoning

The Court held that the duty of an advocate holding brief is not confined to seeking adjournments; the advocate appearing should be prepared to argue the matter. The contention that the party was thereby denied a hearing was found neither candid nor supported by case law or practice.

p. 2
03

Whether the Court considered the applicant's submissions

Holding

The Court had expressly considered the submissions in its earlier Ruling

Reasoning

In the Ruling sought to be reviewed, the Court had explicitly stated it considered the submissions on record. This ground of review therefore had no factual foundation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The obligation of an advocate holding brief extends beyond seeking an adjournment; such an advocate should be ready to argue the case.
  • Review applications in the ELRC are governed by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, not Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 10 March 2022 is dismissed
  2. 2.Further costs of the application awarded to the advocate/applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1; Order 45
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016provisions governing review applications
Jurisdiction invoked
Review jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odhiambo Owiti & Co Advocates v Equator Bottlers Ltd [2022] KEELRC 177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Motion dated 10 March 2022 (arising from judgment adopted on 10 March 2022 in Odhiambo Owiti & Co. Advocates v Equator Bottlers Ltd). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/177/eng@2022-04-27

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