Leo Design Limited v Maina (Cause E144 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1385 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to reverse a default judgment against an employer who ignored court papers for months, then tried to undo the outcome.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficient cause for setting aside a regular judgment
The Applicant did not establish sufficient cause; no accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake was established, and the negligence of the Applicant and its advocates cannot be visited on the Claimant.
The court accepted the Claimant's submission that setting aside a regular judgment requires sufficient cause as defined in Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira - situations where no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is imputed to the applicant. Here, the Applicant was duly served with summons, claim and hearing notices but refused, ignored and failed to enter appearance or file a defence for about six to seven months. The prior and subsequent conduct demonstrated inordinate delay, no valid reasons and no triable issues, so the discretion could not be exercised in the Applicant's favour.
Triable issues raised by the draft Response and Counterclaim
The alleged triable issues did not persuade the court; the Applicant slept on its rights and gave no cogent reason for non-participation in the proceedings.
Although the Applicant listed several alleged triable issues (ownership of motor vehicle KCC 470L, equitable rights, servicing authority, Lamoc Welfare Group contributions, wrongful termination and leave days) and cited Job Kilach for the proposition that a triable issue need only warrant further interrogation at trial, the court held the Applicant had slept on its rights and provided no cogent reason for refusing to participate in the suit, and thus did not warrant the exercise of discretion despite the draft defence.
Nature of the judgment sought to be set aside
The judgment was a regular, procedural judgment, not an irregular one, since the Applicant and its advocates were duly served.
The Claimant argued the default judgment was regular because the Applicant and its advocates were duly served with summons, memorandum of claim and all mention and hearing notices, yet failed to enter appearance or file a defence for seven months. The court, in dismissing the application, described the judgment as procedural and held the Applicant had failed to surmount the threshold for setting it aside.
Legal principles established
#- Discretionary powers to set aside judgment must be exercised judiciously and not to aid a party bent on obstructing or delaying justice
- A party who deliberately fails to defend after being given opportunity cannot demand the court bend over backwards to accommodate it
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 14th October 2021 with costs to the Claimant/Respondent, who is free to proceed to execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 (inherent power, as donated by Article 159(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leo Design Limited v Maina (Cause E144 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1385 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No E144 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1385/eng@2022-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.