Njataya v Sphinx Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Cause 2193 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 211 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reopen a judgment against a company, ruling it was properly served and must instead complain about its former lawyers elsewhere.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of summons and hearing notices
Service was properly effected; the respondent personally received the summons and its advocates acknowledged service of the hearing notice by stamping the return.
The record showed the Notice of Summons and Statement of Claim were personally received by the respondent on December 4, 2019, and it thereafter instructed Kamau Mwangi & Company Advocates who filed a Notice of Appointment. The hearing notice of June 4, 2021 was acknowledged by the same firm. The court found the claimant legally obtained judgment.
Setting aside ex parte judgment on the basis of lack of instructions to former advocates
Lack of instructions to the advocates who appeared is not a ground for setting aside the judgment; the remedy lies against those advocates in another forum.
The court held it implausible that an advocate would file a Notice of Appointment of Advocates without instructions. The respondent's complaint about Kamau Mwangi & Company acting without instructions could not undo lawful proceedings; its remedy was against the advocates elsewhere.
Variation in the respondent's name
The spelling variation (Sphinix/Sphinx) was not a significant default; there is only one respondent, Sphinx Pharmaceuticals Limited, and the judgment bears the correct name.
The court attributed the variation to the parties' mother tongues and found the documents show the correct name is Sphinx. Since the judgment is in the correct name and only one respondent exists, the variation could not justify setting aside.
Proper representation post-judgment
Rom Law Advocates were improperly on record, having not obtained leave to replace the firm on record at the time of judgment.
Kamau Mwangi & Company Advocates were on record when judgment was entered. Under the procedural rules, new advocates coming on record post-judgment require leave, which Rom Law Advocates did not obtain, rendering the application improperly presented.
Legal principles established
#- Where advocates were on record for a party at the time of judgment, new advocates must obtain leave to come on record post-judgment.
- A party alleging it did not instruct the advocates on record should pursue those advocates at another forum rather than set aside the judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application filed by the respondent dated February 28, 2022, seeking to set aside Judgment on record, and to reopen proceedings is declined.
- 2.Costs to the claimant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the Claim filed October 27, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njataya v Sphinx Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Cause 2193 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 211 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Filed October 27, 2016 (Claim; judgment delivered February 24, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/211/eng@2023-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.