Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated November 23, 2022 arising from suit filed December 9, 2021 (ELRC, Mombasa)· [2023] KEELRC 1521 (KLR)

Amalgmated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Reliable Electrical Engineers [M] Ltd (Cause E102 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1521 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 March 2023
1,212 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Ignoring court papers in an employment case led to judgment standing, as Kenya's ELRC refused to set it aside without a real defence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant filed a memorandum of claim on December 9, 2021 against the respondent, which did not enter appearance or file a response despite service. The suit proceeded to formal proof on April 27, 2022, and judgment was delivered on October 13, 2022. The respondent then filed a notice of motion dated November 23, 2022 seeking stay of execution, setting aside of the judgment and decree, and leave to file its response. It was supported by an affidavit of Manoj Shah, a director, who asserted improper service and an arguable defence based on sub judice. The claimant opposed through a replying affidavit of Rose Omamo, its General Secretary, contending the respondent and its advocates were kept aware of proceedings but ignored them, and that rewarding such conduct would set a bad precedent. The court found an affidavit of service showing service of suit documents on the respondent and, at the respondent's own instance, on its advocates, plus email service of the formal proof notice. Service was therefore proper, and the decree regular and valid. The court applied Philip Kiptoo Chemwolo & Mumias Sugar Co Ltd v Augustine Kubebe on the discretion to set aside default judgments, and Tree Shade Motors v DT Dobie on examining draft defences. The draft defence was held to be a general denial with no triable issue, and no evidence of prior determination of the dispute was exhibited. The application was dismissed with costs, leaving the October 13, 2022 judgment and decree intact.

Key legal issues

#
01

Properness of service

Holding

Respondent was properly served with suit documents and formal proof notice; its failure to attend was a choice with consequences

Reasoning

An affidavit of service showed service of the memorandum of claim on the respondent and, at its instance, on its advocates whose date stamp appeared on served documents. The formal proof notice was served on both respondent and advocates by email with proof of service. The respondent did not deny service but alleged improper service; the court found service proper and the resulting decree regular and valid.

p. 3
02

Whether the draft defence raised a triable issue

Holding

The draft defence was a general denial and raised no triable issue

Reasoning

The only defence suggested in the draft response was sub judice, but the respondent exhibited no documents showing the dispute had previously been determined. Following Tree Shade Motors, the court examined the draft defence and found it lacked merit, so no basis existed to disturb the default judgment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has unlimited discretion to set aside a default judgment on just terms, but where a regular judgment has been entered it will not usually be set aside unless a triable issue is shown
  • Even where ex-parte judgment was lawfully entered, the court should examine the draft defence for a valid or reasonable defence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated November 23, 2022 dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Judgment of October 13, 2022 and consequential decree remain in place

Authorities

#

Cases cited (3)

  • Philip Kiptoo Chemwolo & Mumias Sugar Company Ltd v Augustine Kubebe
    [1982-1988] KAR
  • Kimani v MC Conmell
    [1966] EA 545
  • Tree Shade Motor Limited v Dt Dobie Co. Ltd
    CA 38/98
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; the respondent/applicant's application (not the claim itself) was before the court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amalgmated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Reliable Electrical Engineers [M] Ltd (Cause E102 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1521 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of Motion dated November 23, 2022 arising from suit filed December 9, 2021 (ELRC, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1521/eng@2023-03-09

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