University Academic Staff Union, Maseno Chapter v Maseno University [2022] KEELRC 897 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's employment court let the Teachers Service Commission file extra documents despite a missed hearing, but refused oral testimony, keeping the dispute on written submissions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an application for review of hearing directions met Rule 33(1)(a) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules
The court did not apply Rule 33(1)(a), finding the rules cited as the basis for refusing the application inapplicable and instead resting the decision on the interest of justice and fair-hearing considerations.
The court held that the procedural rules invoked against the Applicant were inapplicable, relying on Ahad v CJE (2019) eKLR. It found that the directions did not tie the court's hands for the life of the case and that allowing the Applicant an opportunity to file additional documents would facilitate a just and expedient resolution. The court exercised discretion in favour of a fair hearing rather than a strict review-threshold analysis.
Whether a mistake by counsel's court assistant in arranging representation should be visited on the party
The court declined to hold the Legal/Court Assistant's mistake against the Applicant, anchoring the decision on Article 50(1) fair-hearing rights.
The Applicant's counsel was absent on the date the directions were issued, her brief having been held by Mr. Oluoch at the request of the Applicant's court assistant. The court found that the counsel's absence was established from the coram, and that holding the assistant's mistake against the Applicant would infringe the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1).
Legal principles established
#- Directions on the mode of hearing are procedural and should not override a party's right to a fair hearing; a party may file additional documents with leave at any stage before judgment.
- A party may file additional documents upon close of pleadings and at any stage before judgment, with the leave of the court.
Court orders
#- 1.The orders issued on 31st May, 2021 are varied
- 2.The Petition shall be heard and determined by way of written submissions as earlier directed
- 3.The Applicant/Respondent has 14 days from the date of the ruling to file any additional documents it may wish to file in relation to the petition
- 4.The Petitioner will have corresponding leave to file a reply if they so wish within 14 days of receipt of the Applicant/Respondent's documents
- 5.Both parties will thereafter have 14 days each to file their submissions starting with the Petitioner
- 6.The matter to be mentioned on a date to be assigned after delivery of the ruling, to confirm compliance and fix a judgment date
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 12, 16, 20(1)(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 28 and 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016; Sections 19, 20(1)(a), (3), 21 and 25 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013; Article 50(2) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "University Academic Staff Union, Maseno Chapter v Maseno University [2022] KEELRC 897 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 15th February, 2021 (Motion dated 29th June, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/897/eng@2022-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.