Autobase Trading Limited v Kalenda & another (Miscellaneous Application E019 & E018 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2577 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa employment court reinstated a missed hearing, but only after ordering the applicant to deposit over Ksh. 865,000 in court first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mistake of counsel's office justifies setting aside dismissal for non-attendance
No, where counsel personally attended the allocation of the hearing date; the mistake of the legal assistant cannot excuse counsel
The court found Ms Kinuva was personally present on 25 February 2025 when 18 March 2025 was fixed by consensus and interim orders were extended. The applicant's assertion that the legal assistant failed to diarise the hearing correctly was rejected as incorrect because blame cannot shift from counsel who was present in court when the date was taken.
Whether reinstatement should be granted despite non-compliance with prior orders
Yes, but only on conditions, including deposit of the decretal sums in court
The court acknowledged the applicant had not complied with the 30-day stay granted by the trial court on 5 November 2024 and was thus not in good standing. Nonetheless, as a court of justice it opted to reinstate the application subject to conditions: deposit of the decretal sums and payment of assessed costs within 14 days, failing which the matters stand dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Counsel who is personally present when a hearing date is allocated in open court cannot shift blame for non-attendance to a legal assistant who diarised the wrong date
- A party in non-compliance with court orders is not in good standing, but justice may still permit reinstatement subject to conditions
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6 February 2025 in Misc. E019 of 2025 is reinstated on conditions
- 2.The applicant shall deposit Ksh. 865,123.30 in court within 14 calendar days from 8 October 2025, failure to which the entire suit shall be deemed abandoned with costs to the respondent
- 3.The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs assessed at Ksh. 15,000 within 14 days
- 4.Where the deposit takes effect, the respondent is to claim costs accordingly
- 5.Move the court accordingly
- 6.The same orders apply to Misc. E018 of 2025: deposit of Ksh. 1,045,721; costs due to the respondent of Ksh. 15,000; and where there is no compliance the entire application shall stand dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court to set aside/reinstate orders dismissed for non-attendance (not expressly cited in the ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Autobase Trading Limited v Kalenda & another (Miscellaneous Application E019 & E018 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2577 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Misc. E019 of 2025 (Consolidated with Misc. E018 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2577/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.