Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Appeal No. 56 of 2018

Apex Steel Limited v Onyango (Appeal 56 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 629 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 March 2024
481 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that affidavits filed without the court's permission can be struck out, and litigants must be honest with the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi against a ruling delivered on 19th October 2018 by Hon. I Orenge, Senior Resident Magistrate, striking out and expunging from the record a further affidavit sworn by Samuel R. Mlemwa on 15th October 2018. The appeal raised a single issue: whether the trial court erred in striking out the affidavit, which was filed without leave of court. The appellant alleged that leave had been orally sought and obtained on 19th October 2018, while the respondent's advocate denied this and contended that the affidavit had been sneaked in alongside submissions. The court found nothing on record showing leave was sought or obtained before filing. The appellant's invocation of Article 159 of the Constitution on procedural technicalities was treated as a thinly veiled admission that no leave had been obtained. The court held that discretionary procedural orders require a party to approach the court with clean hands, a test the appellant failed. The appeal was found frivolous and unmerited and was dismissed with costs on 14th March 2024, delivered virtually at Nairobi.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the trial court erred in striking out and expunging from the record a further affidavit filed by the appellant sworn by one Samuel R. Mlemwa on 15th October, 2018 without leave of court

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court erred in striking out and expunging a further affidavit filed without leave

Holding

The appeal fails; the trial court correctly struck out the affidavit since no leave was sought or obtained, and the appellant did not come to court with clean hands

Reasoning

The court found as a fact that there was nothing on record showing leave was sought before filing the further affidavit. The appellant's reliance on Article 159 of the Constitution on procedural technicalities was treated as a thinly veiled admission that leave was never obtained. Because discretionary procedural orders require a party to approach the court with clean hands, and the appellant failed that test, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Setting aside orders, procedural orders and other directions are discretionary and a party seeking them must approach the court with clean hands
  • A further affidavit filed without leave of court may be struck out and expunged from the record

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.It is so ordered

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Lower court (Senior Resident Magistrate)
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (appeal from a ruling of the Senior Resident Magistrate's court)

Relief refused

#

The appellant's appeal against the striking out and expunging of the further affidavit

There was no record of leave being sought and obtained before filing the further affidavit; the appellant did not approach the court with clean hands

p. 2

Costs

The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Setting aside orders, procedural orders and other directions are discretionary and a party seeking them must approach the court with clean hands. The appellant has failed this test.
p. 2Discretionary procedural orders and clean hands doctrine
The appeal is therefore found frivolous, unmerited and is hereby dismissed with costs.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of the appeal

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment is not verbatim-consistent on the outcome of the expungement application: it states the affidavit was 'expunged by the defendant' and refers to 'Mr. Makori for the defendant/applicant' while the appellant is elsewhere described as the party who filed the affidavit, suggesting possible transcription errors

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Apex Steel Limited v Onyango (Appeal 56 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Appeal No. 56 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/629/eng@2024-03-14

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