Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the extract provided· [2025] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

Kenya Chemical Workers' Union v Mac’s Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause E912 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 May 2025
RSRADIDO STEPHEN
750 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to reopen a judgment against Mac's Pharmaceuticals because the company never explained why it stayed silent in court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Motion dated 25 February 2025 by Mac's Pharmaceuticals Ltd, the Respondent in an employment Cause, seeking to set aside a judgment delivered on 3 April 2024 together with consequential orders, to reinstate its Memorandum of Response for hearing on merit, and for leave to file the Memorandum of Response out of time, attributing its non-participation to suspension by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board and resulting financial hardship. The Union (Claimant) opposed through a replying affidavit and submissions, contending that the Respondent was served but opted not to participate, that a regular judgment was delivered, and that enforcement was vital to secure the rights of former employees under two Collective Bargaining Agreements. Earlier, the Court had granted an interim stay of execution on condition that the Respondent deposit the decretal sum of Kshs 500,000/- into Court, a condition the Respondent never complied with; it also filed submissions late and without explanation. The Court found that the Respondent did not deny service, and that although the Pharmacy and Poisons Board had ordered a stoppage of manufacturing from 27 July 2023, the Respondent failed to show how that order made it impossible to participate in the proceedings or instruct an advocate. Holding that the Respondent had not set out sufficient grounds for the exercise of the Court's discretion, the Court dismissed the Motion as without merit and, because of the unexplained late filing of submissions, condemned the Respondent to pay the Union's costs of the Motion. Judgment was delivered virtually, dated and signed in Nairobi on 15 May 2025 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was condemned unheard such that the judgment of 3 April 2024 should be set aside

Holding

The judgment was regular; the Respondent was served but chose not to participate, and its suspension by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board did not prevent it from defending the Cause

Reasoning

The Court found that service was not denied. The stoppage of manufacturing by the regulator caused financial hardship, but nothing in that order prevented the Respondent from instructing counsel or bringing its difficulties to the Court's attention. Failure to comply with the condition for interim stay further weighed against the exercise of discretion.

p. 2
02

Whether the Court's discretion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a defence out of time should be exercised

Holding

The discretion was not exercised in the Respondent's favour because it did not comply with the condition for interim stay and advanced no sufficient ground

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged it had discretion (as supported by the authorities cited by the Respondent) but held that the applicant's conduct - non-compliance with the deposit condition and unexplained late filing of submissions - disentitled it from the discretionary relief sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking the exercise of the Court's discretion to set aside a regular judgment must both comply with conditions attached to interim relief and set out sufficient grounds for the discretion to be exercised in its favour
  • Financial or regulatory difficulties do not excuse non-participation in court proceedings unless the party shows they made participation or instruction of an advocate impossible

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 25 February 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed
  2. 2.The Respondent is condemned to pay the Union's costs of the Motion due to the late filing of submissions without any explanation
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (interlocutory Motion in a Cause); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is quoted in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers' Union v Mac’s Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause E912 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1402/eng@2025-05-15

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