Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2022] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)

Thuita v Mount Kenya University (Cause E6519 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 May 2022
1,709 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, an employer (a university), applied on 13th January 2022 for stay of execution and setting aside of an ex-parte judgment and decree delivered on 16th December 2021 in a claim by its former employee. Through its Human Resource Officer, it deponed that it learned of the judgment on 11th January 2022 during a routine perusal of the law reports; that it was served with summons only via email and never with the pleadings or statement of claim, contrary to Rules 11(2) and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Practice) Rules 2016; and that once served it would raise an unassailable defence. The Claimant opposed through her advocate, asserting that service by email complied with the Covid-19 protocols in Gazette Notice 2357 of 4th March 2020, that the Respondent was given a hyperlink to the court portal for the filed documents, and that the Respondent was aware of the proceedings throughout. The court framed a single issue: whether the ex-parte judgment should be set aside. Relying on Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira, Patel v East Africa Cargo Handling Services Ltd and JKUAT v Musa Ezekiel Oebah, the court held that email service was now an accepted mode, that the Respondent's insistence on physical service was a mere excuse, and that without a draft defence the court could not find triable issues. The application was dismissed with costs on 19th May 2022.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte judgment of 16th December, 2021, particularly on alleged non-service of the pleadings

Holding

The application was dismissed. Service of summons via email was valid under the Covid-19 protocols and the Respondent, as a regular practitioner, could have retrieved the pleadings from the court portal or registry. The Respondent also failed to file a draft defence demonstrating triable issues.

Reasoning

The court accepted that email service was an accepted mode during the Covid-19 pandemic under Gazette Notice 2357 of 4th March 2020, and that the Respondent's insistence on physical service was a mere excuse. The Respondent did not show efforts to access the pleadings from the portal or the registry. Further, an applicant seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment must show a defence on the merits; the Respondent filed no draft defence, so the court had nothing to weigh for triable issues, and found its averments not candid.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Sufficient cause for setting aside an ex-parte judgment exists where the defendant cannot be blamed for his absence, and is a question of fact for the court's discretion in each case
  • The court will not set aside its judgment unless the applicant demonstrates a defence on the merits raising triable issues
  • The discretion to set aside a regular ex-parte judgment exists to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable error, not to assist a party who deliberately obstructed or delayed justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 13th January, 2022 seeking stay of execution and setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree of 16th December, 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Claimant
  3. 3.A signed copy of the judgment to be availed to each party upon payment of court fees
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to review and set aside its own ex-parte judgment (Employment and Labour Relations Court (Practice) Rules 2016)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thuita v Mount Kenya University (Cause E6519 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1210/eng@2022-05-19

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