Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedApplication dated 6 June 2024 (in claim dated 17 May 2023)· [2024] KEELRC 2317 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya Marine Contractors (EPZ) Limited (Cause E047 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2317 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2024
1,746 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court reinstated a union's dismissed lawsuit so it could be heard fairly, but made the union pay costs for missing the hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, Kenya Engineering Workers Union, applied under Sections 12 and 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules for review and reinstatement of its claim dated 17 May 2023, which was dismissed with costs on 28 May 2024 for non-attendance. The claimant's representative, Mr Makale, a diabetic, was said to have suffered low sugar in a Mombasa hotel and missed the 11 am hearing; affidavits by the union's general secretary Wyclifie A Nyamwata and Fred Songwa, a friend who assisted with medication, explained the absence. The respondent opposed, arguing there was no proper review application, no evidence of the medical condition, and that the absent advocate should have sworn the affidavit. The court applied Rule 33 and the definitions of sufficient cause in Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira and The Official Receiver and Liquidator v Freight Forwarders Kenya Limited. It found no supporting affidavit from Makale himself despite his recorded presence and ability to prosecute the application, and noted the claimant's application and submissions were at variance, focusing wrongly on a counterclaim allegedly filed without leave. However, holding that the claimant should not be punished for its representative's conduct, the court reinstated the suit to be heard on the merits but ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs of Ksh. 20,000. Judgment delivered at Mombasa on 26 September 2024 by M. Mbarũ, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the medical incapacity of the claimant's representative constituted sufficient cause for review under Rule 33

Holding

No sufficient cause was proved because no affidavit from the absent representative confirmed the medical condition, but the suit was nonetheless reinstated so the claim could be heard on the merits, with costs to the respondent.

Reasoning

Rule 33 requires discovery of new matters, error apparent, need for clarification, or sufficient cause. The court relied on Wachira Karani and the Official Receiver cases on sufficient cause. The representative Makale, whose presence the court recorded, swore no affidavit explaining his absence; third-party affidavits could not substitute. Yet punishment of the claimant for counsel's conduct would defeat the merits. Reinstatement was granted but with costs to the respondent.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Sufficient cause for review requires that the party did not act negligently or without bona fides, and discretion must be exercised judiciously
  • Good cause for review is not limited to discovery of new matters, error apparent on the face of the record, or mistake
  • A party should not be punished for the conduct of its attending representative, though caution is warranted against casual treatment of proceedings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit dismissed on 28 May 2024 is reinstated to be heard on the merits
  2. 2.The claimant will meet costs due to the respondent assessed at Ksh. 20,000

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 20
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 33

Cases cited (2)

  • Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • The Official Receiver and Liquidator v Freight Forwarders Kenya Limited
    [2000] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 12 and 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya Marine Contractors (EPZ) Limited (Cause E047 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 6 June 2024 (in claim dated 17 May 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2317/eng@2024-09-26

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