Voks Fashions Limited v Baraza (Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1501 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to undo a settlement because consent orders are binding and the new law firm had not properly come on record.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the consent order of 8th January 2025 was binding
The consent was binding; the only potentially viable ground (full settlement of the decretal sum) was found untrue, and the consent was entered by an advocate properly on record
The court applied the Brooke Bond Liebig principle that consent orders bind unless procured by fraud, collusion or mistake. The Applicant alleged lack of authority, but the deposit of the money in court was made under the name of OP Ngoge & Associates, showing that firm was the instructed firm on record. The claim of full satisfaction was contradicted by the Respondent's uncontroverted replying affidavit showing the sale proceeds did not satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 1,158,081.27.
Whether the application was properly brought by a different law firm
The application was procedurally improper because Gopichandara & Co. Advocates had not filed a notice of change of advocates in Appeal No. E006 of 2024 while OP Ngoge Advocates remained on record
The court found that the miscellaneous application was lodged through a different law firm without a change of advocates being effected in the appeal where the impugned consent was filed. This bypassed the position of the advocate on record and was prejudicial to his interests, rendering the application improper regardless of its merits.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order is binding on the parties unless obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, misrepresentation, or without authority, or for reasons which would enable a court to set aside a contract
- An advocate appearing for a party must file a notice of change of advocates before another firm can act; a filing by a firm not on record is improper and prejudicial to the advocate on record
Court orders
#- 1.The court declined to interfere with the consent judgment dated 16th January 2025
- 2.No further costs ordered in the matter
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs in the application
- 4.The file marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80, 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Voks Fashions Limited v Baraza (Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1501 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ELRCA No. E006 of 2024 (Miscellaneous Application dated 28th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1501/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.