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· [2024] KEELRC 404 (KLR)

Kamanga v Venus Inn & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 371 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 404 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 February 2024
3,455 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Maureen Onyango J) determined two post-judgment applications arising from an ex-parte judgment delivered on 9th May 2022 in an employment claim against Venus Inn (1st Respondent) and Mahindi Comfy Hotel (2nd Respondent), jointly and severally. The 2nd Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 12th June 2023 sought to be struck out of the suit, setting aside of the ex-parte judgment against it, and in the alternative leave to file a defence, on grounds of defective service and lack of privity. The court held that striking out a party after judgment is impermissible because the court becomes functus officio upon judgment. On setting aside, the court found the 2nd Respondent was properly served with all pleadings and notices, shared common directors with the 1st Respondent and thus knew of the proceedings since 2019, and had attached no draft defence. Applying Shah v Mbogo and Order 10 rule 11, that application was dismissed with costs. The 1st Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 29th May 2023 sought stay of execution, review of the judgment so the decretal sum be shared equally between the Respondents, and leave to pay in monthly instalments of Kshs 10,000. Applying Hildegard Ndalut v Lelkina Dairies, the court held a judgment debtor must show bona fides by fair, prompt payment proposals. Order 42 rule 6(2) mandatorily requires deposited security, which deferred instalments cannot satisfy. Noting over a year's delay, no payments, no prosecution of the appeal, and the withdrawal of an earlier stay application once interim orders were obtained, the court found the application designed to obstruct execution and dismissed it with costs. Both applications were dismissed with costs to the Claimant/Decree Holder.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a party can be struck out of a suit after judgment

Holding

No; the court is functus officio after judgment and cannot reopen the suit to strike out a party

Reasoning

Order 2 Rule 15 permits striking out of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but proceedings conclude with judgment. Once judgment is delivered the court becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the suit. The 2nd Respondent's prayer to be struck out therefore came too late and was dismissed.

p. 5
02

Whether the ex-parte judgment against the 2nd Respondent should be set aside

Holding

No; service was properly effected and the 2nd Respondent was aware of proceedings through its common directors with the 1st Respondent

Reasoning

Affidavits of service showed proper service of pleadings and notices. The 1st and 2nd Respondents share common directors, so the 2nd Respondent knew of the proceedings from the outset. The 2nd Respondent also failed to attach a draft defence to demonstrate a good defence. The discretionary test in Shah v Mbogo was applied.

p. 6
03

Whether the 1st Respondent should pay the decretal sum in instalments and obtain stay of execution

Holding

No; instalments cannot satisfy the mandatory security requirement of Order 42 rule 6(2) and the application was made to obstruct execution

Reasoning

Rule 6(2) is in mandatory terms requiring security for due performance of the decree. A proposal to pay over four years cannot be such security. The 1st Respondent had made no payments over a year since judgment, had not prosecuted its appeal, and had withdrawn an earlier stay application once interim orders were obtained, evidencing bad faith under Shah v Mbogo.

p. 7
04

Whether the decretal sum should be shared equally between the Respondents

Holding

No; apportionment between joint and several judgment debtors is not a ground for review and would be a separate matter after satisfaction of the decree

Reasoning

The Claimant argued that apportioning the decretal sum among judgment debtors was a new cause of action to be litigated independently among the Respondents after the decree is satisfied. The court dismissed the 1st Respondent's application outright, rejecting the review and instalment proposals for want of bona fides and compliance with Order 42 rule 6.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court becomes functus officio upon delivering judgment and cannot reopen a suit to strike out a party after judgment
  • Security for the due performance of a decree under Order 42 rule 6(2) must be deposited and cannot take the form of deferred instalment payments
  • A judgment debtor seeking instalment payments must show bona fides by arranging fair payment proposals promptly
  • The discretion to set aside ex-parte judgments is not designed to assist a party who deliberately seeks to obstruct or delay the course of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayer that the 2nd Respondent be struck out of the suit is dismissed as the court is functus officio after judgment
  2. 2.The 2nd Respondent's application dated 12th June 2023 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant/Decree Holder
  3. 3.The 1st Respondent's application dated 29th May 2023 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant/Decree Holder

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(1) and (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mureithi Charles & another v Jacob Atina Nyagesuka
    [2022] eKLR
  • Shah v Mbogo & Another
    [1967] EA 116
  • Hildegard Ndalut v Lelkina Dairies Ltd & Anor
    [2005] eKLR
  • Keshavji Jethabhai & Bothers Limited v Saleh Abdulla
    [1959] EA 260
  • Sawatram Ramprasad v Imperial Bank of India
    [1933] AIR Nag. 33
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the employment claim and post-judgment applications under the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamanga v Venus Inn & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 371 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 404 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/404/eng@2024-02-29

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