Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2024] KEELRC 863 (KLR)

Cheruiyot & 15 others v SBI International Holdings (AG) Ltd (Cause 141 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 863 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 March 2024
RSRadido Stephen
604 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

#

The Employment Court in Kisumu refused to extend time for challenging a taxing officer's ruling because the auctioneer gave no credible explanation for its delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Lister Auctioneers filed a Party to Party Bill of Costs on 16 February 2021 seeking taxation of costs following a ruling on a Motion dated 8 October 2020. SBI International Holdings (AG) Ltd raised a preliminary objection, which the Taxing Officer upheld on 31 October 2023 on the ground that the auctioneer, not being a party to the proceedings, was not competent to file a Party to Party Bill of Costs. On 19 January 2024 the applicant filed a Chamber Summons seeking enlargement of time to lodge a Reference against that ruling, setting aside of the Taxing Master's decision, reinstatement and taxation of the bill, and costs. The applicant attributed the delay to the time taken to obtain the ruling and instructions (received 22 November 2023) and to an office break over the festive season. Neither the claimants nor the respondent attended the hearing, and the court proceeded on the applicant's oral submissions. Radido J declined the relief for five reasons: the applicant was present when the ruling date was fixed but failed to attend the delivery of the ruling without explanation; the advocate did not explain the delay until 22 November 2023 to seek instructions; the festive-season excuse was vague and undated, noting the courts' break only began around 21 December; there was no evidence of an objection filed within 14 days of the ruling; and there was no proof of service of the application despite the Deputy Registrar's directions of 21 January 2024. The Chamber Summons dated 15 January 2024 was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the Reference was satisfactorily explained

Holding

The court held the delay was not satisfactorily explained: the applicant missed the ruling date, the advocate delayed seeking instructions until 22 November 2023, and the festive-season excuse was vague.

Reasoning

The court enumerated five reasons: attendance at the date fixation but absence at the ruling without explanation; unexplained delay until 22 November 2023 to seek instructions; vague festive-season break with no dates given despite court break being around 21 December; no evidence of filing an objection within 14 days; and no proof of service of the application on other parties despite directions. Cumulatively these justified declining the discretionary relief.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking enlargement of time must offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay, including explaining non-attendance at delivery of the ruling and any delay in giving instructions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 15 January 2024 was dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to enlarge time for filing a Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheruiyot & 15 others v SBI International Holdings (AG) Ltd (Cause 141 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 863 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/863/eng@2024-03-20

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