Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2023] KEELRC 2713 (KLR)

Gongera v Mount Kenya University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E958 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2713 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 October 2023
2,756 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court set aside a default judgment after a lawyer's honest scheduling mistake, ordering the employer to pay KShs. 30,000 within 14 days or the judgment returns.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court determined two live applications arising from an ex parte judgment delivered on 27th July 2023 in a claim by George Gongera against the Respondent. The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2023 sought to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and leave to file its response out of time, citing counsel's failure to diarize the formal proof hearing of 2nd February 2023 and administrative lapses following the resignation of the law firm's Administrative Assistant on 20th October 2022. The court characterized the judgment as a regular default judgment under the James Kanyiita Nderitu parameters, as the Respondent had been served, entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection but failed to file a substantive response or attend the hearing. Applying Itute Ingu, the court held that a bona fide mistake of counsel constitutes sufficient cause, censured counsel's administrative failures but declined to visit the mistake on the litigant, noting the draft defence raised triable issues and the application was lodged only four days after judgment. The ex parte judgment was set aside, with the Respondent granted seven days to file its response and priority hearing, on condition of thrown away costs of KShs. 30,000 within 14 days, failing which the judgment reverts. The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2023 seeking execution before assessment of costs under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act was dismissed, the court holding that setting aside the judgment and decree removed its substratum. Costs of that application were to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a bona fide mistake of counsel constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside a regular default judgment

Holding

Yes - the court was persuaded the mistake was bona fide and should not be visited on the Respondent, who was entitled to a hearing on the merits

Reasoning

The court categorized the ex parte judgment as a regular default judgment under the James Kanyiita Nderitu parameters since the Respondent was served, entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection but failed to file a substantive response or attend the formal proof hearing. Relying on Itute Ingu, the court held that a bona fide mistake of counsel can attract the court's discretion. Counsel's administrative lapses following the resignation of the firm's Administrative Assistant were held to be a bona fide mistake, censured but not visited on the litigant, with the draft defence raising triable issues and the application brought promptly.

p. 5
02

Whether execution before assessment of costs could be permitted

Holding

No - the application was dismissed as its substratum fell away upon setting aside the judgment and decree

Reasoning

The court acknowledged its authority under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act and section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act to order execution of a decree before assessment of costs. However, having set aside the ex parte judgment and the consequential decree, there was no longer any decree capable of execution, so the Claimant's application was rendered moot and dismissed with costs in the cause.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A regular default judgment may be set aside under Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the defendant establishes sufficient cause, and a bona fide mistake of counsel can constitute sufficient cause
  • In setting aside default judgment, the court has unfettered discretion and considers the reason for default, time elapsed, triable issues, prejudice and the interest of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer 3 of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2023 allowed - the ex parte judgment delivered on 27th July 2023 set aside
  2. 2.The Respondent to file its response to the Statement of Claim within seven (7) days of the date of the Ruling
  3. 3.The matter to be granted a hearing date on a priority basis
  4. 4.The Respondent to pay thrown away costs of KShs. 30,000 to the Claimant within 14 days of the date of the ruling, in default of which the judgment shall revert
  5. 5.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2023 dismissed, with costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 48
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, No. 20 of 2011Sections 3 & 12(3)
  • Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rules 32(2) and 33
  • Civil Procedure Act, 2010 (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 94; Section 1B
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 10 rule 11; Order 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (10)

  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Mbogo & another v Shah
  • Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    (1975) EA 75
  • Chemwolo & another v Kubende
    [1986] KLR 492
  • CMC Holdings v Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
  • Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Ongom v Owota
  • Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v The Chairman Bunju Village Government & others
  • Daphene Parry v Murray Alexander Carson
  • Itute Ingu & another v Isumael Mwakavi Mwendwa
    [1994] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3 & 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, No. 20 of 2011; rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules 2016; Order 10 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gongera v Mount Kenya University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E958 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2713/eng@2023-10-19

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