Gold Crown Beverages (Kenya) Limited v Ngugi (Cause 635 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2619 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a losing party's attempt to undo a judgment, ruling you cannot swap advocates, delay execution, or reopen a case you ignored.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Change of advocates post-judgment
The change was improperly effected; Order 9 Rule 9 requires a consent or leave, neither of which was obtained, rendering the new firm's filings invalid
The court traced the purpose of Order 9 Rule 9 as preventing disruptive changes of advocates without settling costs. Where consent cannot be secured, leave with reasons must be obtained first. Here no leave was sought and no explanation given beyond blaming prior advocates, so the application should have terminated at the threshold.
Stay, review and annulment of 'ex parte' judgment
The judgment of 28 September 2023 was not ex parte as the respondent participated throughout; defence was closed on 13 July 2023 after his non-attendance
The procedural history showed the respondent entered appearance, filed a response and counterclaim, and cross-examined the claimant's witness. He was absent on 17 April and 13 July 2023 despite his advocate attending. Blaming advocates does not amount to sufficient cause, and an application to annul proceedings of 13.7.2013 targets a non-existent proceeding.
Reopening of proceedings
Reopening was refused as the respondent was responsible for the delays and reopening would prejudice the claimant after judgment
The record showed repeated adjournments largely attributable to the respondent's unreadiness and non-attendance. The counterclaim had been addressed with finality. Revisiting the claimant's case after judgment would be prejudicial, and the respondent's reliance on Article 159 could not overcome his own failure to attend.
Legal principles established
#- Change of advocates post-judgment requires either a consent between outgoing and incoming advocates or leave of court upon application with notice; without leave, filings by the incoming firm are invalid
- A litigant cannot blame his advocate's negligence to escape the consequences of his own non-attendance; the suit belongs to the litigant
- A court can only stay, review or annul a judgment or proceeding that actually exists
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17 May 2024 was found to be an abuse of court process and was dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; application under Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gold Crown Beverages (Kenya) Limited v Ngugi (Cause 635 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2619 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2619/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.