Grace Nduta Kangari & 74 others v Rioki Coffee Estate Company (1970) Limited [2022] KEELRC 387 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court reopened a case missed by an employer's lawyer, but made the employer pay Kshs.15,000 in costs for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether counsel's alleged engagement in another court constitutes sufficient cause for non-attendance justifying setting aside of ex parte proceedings
The proffered reason was not proved - the deponent was not the counsel said to be in Kiambu High Court, making the assertion hearsay unsupported by any documentary proof; nevertheless the application was allowed because the case had not been concluded and declining would lock the Applicant out of justice
The court found that counsel who swore the supporting affidavit was not the counsel alleged to have been held up in Kiambu High Court, rendering the evidence hearsay; there was no cause list, proceedings, or diary entry proving the conflicting engagement. Ordinarily this would fail the sufficient cause threshold. However, since the Claimants' case was closed but submissions were not yet filed and judgment had not been delivered, the court exercised its discretion in favour of reopening, balancing the prejudice of the matter's age against access to justice, and imposed throw away costs on the Applicant.
Legal principles established
#- The court's discretion to set aside ex parte proceedings is intended to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake, but not to assist a party who deliberately obstructs or delays the course of justice
- Sufficient cause is a question of fact; the defendant must demonstrate that he was prevented from attending court by a sufficient cause
- A court may reluctantly allow setting aside of ex parte proceedings where declining would lock a party out of the seat of justice, even absent a fully proved reason for non-attendance
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte proceedings of 25th May 2021 are set aside to the extent that the hearing is reopened and the Applicant is allowed to cross-examine the Claimant and prosecute its defence
- 2.The Applicant is condemned to pay the Claimant's throw away costs of Kshs.15,000/- before the hearing date
- 3.A hearing date to be fixed at the registry on a priority basis
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to set aside ex parte proceedings under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 read with the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Nduta Kangari & 74 others v Rioki Coffee Estate Company (1970) Limited [2022] KEELRC 387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 1054 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/387/eng@2022-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.