Maloba v Ken Iron & Steel Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E229 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2224 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed an appeal filed two months late, ruling that a law firm's loss of an advocate justified leniency where the appeal was arguable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately two months in filing the appeal was excusable
The delay was not egregious and the death of an advocate in the applicant's law firm constituted an exceptional circumstance that partly explained the delay
The court weighed the two-month delay against the reasons offered. The applicant's advocates had not received notice of the judgment, and the mobile number used for court notifications belonged to a deceased partner in the firm. The court held the delay was not excessively prolonged and, drawing on authority that an advocate's failure should be assessed against the litigant's personal fault, found the death of an advocate an exceptional circumstance justifying leniency.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The draft memorandum of appeal raised substantive and arguable legal issues deserving judicial consideration
The draft memorandum raised alleged misapplication of Sections 41, 10(7) and 74 of the Employment Act, 2007 on procedural fairness and record-keeping, failure to consider evidence on salary arrears, and denial of a certificate of service, a statutory right. The court found these arguable points of law which, in the interest of justice, should be heard where delay and prejudice do not overwhelmingly militate against it.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted
The respondent had not demonstrated irreparable harm or substantial prejudice if the appeal proceeded
The respondent argued that allowing the appeal would prolong litigation and cause financial and administrative burden. The court noted the judgment was delivered less than a year earlier and the respondent had not shown irreparable harm. Citing authority that minor delays should not bar a meritorious appeal absent substantial prejudice, the court found this factor favoured the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right but a discretionary remedy and the applicant must lay a satisfactory basis for the delay
- A delay of two months is not inordinate if satisfactorily explained
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant/Applicant is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling to file and serve the appeal
- 2.The record of appeal already filed shall be deemed properly filed upon payment of the requisite fees
- 3.Each party shall bear their costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- ELRC Case No. E1264 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 18 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maloba v Ken Iron & Steel Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E229 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2224 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from ELRC Case No. E1264 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2224/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.