Balo v Babs Security Services Limited (Cause 24 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1555 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the application founded on obsolete rules
The application cited Rule 13(4), 16(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, which are obsolete; however the court went on to consider the application on its merits since the substantive provisions are word for word similar to the 2016 Rules
The claimant objected that the 2010 Industrial Court Rules no longer govern, as proceedings are now regulated by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The court noted the objection but found that even if the 2010 Rules applied, the service provisions are identical in substance, so the court determined the issues at hand rather than dismissing outright on that ground.
Whether service on the respondent was proper
Service was proper: the summons stamped and received by the secretary/receptionist Maggie at the respondent's offices satisfied Rule 12 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
The Affidavit of Service showed the process server effected service and the summons was signed and stamped by the secretary/receptionist. Under Rule 12, service on a corporate body may be effected on the secretary, director or principal officer, or by leaving the pleadings at a conspicuous place at the registered office. By accepting and stamping the summons at its offices, service was validly effected.
Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside and leave to defend granted
No: the respondent failed to show a reasonable defence, its draft response being mere denials lacking the employment records required under Section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act, 2007
The court applied the settled test that an applicant seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment must show a defence raising triable issues. The 9-paragraph draft response consisted of mere denials and an unparticularized counterclaim, contrary to Section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act, 2007 and the principle in Raghbir Singh Chatte that a general traverse is insufficient. Reopening the case would be a wild goose chase.
Whether the process server should be summoned for cross-examination
No: service being proper and the judgment having addressed the claim on the merits, the orders sought were not justified
The court had already found service proper under Rule 12. Since service was validly effected and the earlier judgment satisfied itself on service before proceeding, there was no basis to summon the process server for cross-examination on the Affidavit of Service.
Legal principles established
#- Service on a corporate body may be effected on its secretary, director or principal officer, or by leaving pleadings at a conspicuous place at the registered office
- An application to set aside an ex parte judgment must demonstrate a reasonable defence raising triable issues; a mere general traverse is insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23 April 2024 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (original employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Balo v Babs Security Services Limited (Cause 24 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (memorandum of claim filed 21 January 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1555/eng@2024-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.