Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the excerpt (Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause)· [2025] KEELRC 274 (KLR)

Unilever Kenya Limited v Ntinyari (Cause E155 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 274 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
416 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 employment court let a respondent back into a case despite a wrong date in a consent, showing courts correct procedural slips to reach fair outcomes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos delivered by Radido Stephen, Judge, on 6 February 2025. On 6 June 2024 the Court, in the absence of the parties, directed that the Cause proceed as an undefended Cause with formal proof dates to be taken at the Registry. The Respondent, Caroline Ntinyari, then filed a Motion dated 25 September 2024 seeking review of those directions and leave to defend. Directions on the Motion were given on 6 November 2024 and the Respondent filed submissions on 21 November 2024. On 3 December 2024 the parties filed a consent recording the Motion as settled: the orders directing formal proof and undefended-cause proceedings to be set aside, the Respondent's Response and witness documents dated 7 and 27 May 2024 deemed duly filed, and no order as to costs. The Court noted a discrepancy: the consent, and the Motion itself, referred to orders of 26 June 2024 whereas the impugned directions were issued on 6 June 2024; the Court could not determine whether this was inadvertent or typographical. The Claimant filed no response or submissions. The Court allowed the Motion: the undefended-cause order of 6 June 2024 was set aside, the Respondent's Response, witness statements and documents were admitted onto the record, and each party was to bear its own costs of the Motion. The judgment was delivered virtually, dated and signed at Machakos.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of a consent order referencing a wrong date for court directions

Holding

The Court found the consent referred to orders not made by it (26 June 2024 vs 6 June 2024) and could not discern whether the error was inadvertent or typographical, but proceeded to allow the Motion on its merits.

Reasoning

The Claimant filed no response or submissions opposing the Motion. Since the consent sought to compromise the Motion by setting aside the undefended-cause direction and deeming the Respondent's pleadings properly on record, the Court allowed the Motion substantially in those terms, correcting the date discrepancy by granting the substantive relief sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a consent refers to directions/orders not issued by the Court on the stated date, the Court may allow the underlying application on its own merits notwithstanding the erroneous date reference.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order that the Cause proceeds as undefended issued on 6 June 2024 is set aside
  2. 2.The Respondent's Response, witness statements and documents are admitted onto the record
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs of the Motion
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own interlocutory directions (not expressly cited in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Unilever Kenya Limited v Ntinyari (Cause E155 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 274 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/274/eng@2025-02-06

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