Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E004 OF 2026· [2026] KEELRC 2594 (KLR)

Hirji Premji Dabasiya Hitesh v Evans Michoma Makwaro & Bhachu Industries Lukenya Site

Employment & Labour Relations Court
24 September 2026
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,491 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to extend time to appeal because the party's lawyer was emailed the judgment notice and ignored it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, a judgment debtor in Mavoko ELRC Cause No. E065 of 2022 in which judgment was entered against him on 8th August 2025 for Kshs. 86,500 plus costs and interest, moved the ELRC at Machakos by Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 seeking leave to appeal out of time, deeming of his Memorandum of Appeal as filed, and costs in the cause. He attributed the delay to non-service of the notice of delivery of judgment on himself or his advocates, asserting he only learnt of the judgment upon service of a proclamation notice and warrants of attachment in January 2026. The 1st respondent opposed, contending the judgment notice dated 31st July 2025 was served by email on the applicant's advocates on record, Dennis Gicheru Wanjiru & Co. Advocates, at an address routinely used for correspondence, that service on an advocate is service on the party, and that the applicants were guilty of laches. Both parties relied on Salat v IEBC on extension-of-time principles. Wasilwa J found that the applicants had not denied receiving the judgment notice and had not explained their failure to attend to the judgment after knowing of its delivery. Holding that the applicants were duly notified and guilty of laches, the court declined the orders prayed and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent on 24th September 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants were served with notice of delivery of judgment

Holding

The court found the applicants were duly notified through their advocates' email address, which they did not deny receiving

Reasoning

The respondent filed a notice of judgment dated 31/7/25 sent to the applicants' advocates' email address Gicheru80@gmail.com informing them of the scheduled delivery of judgment on 8/8/25. The applicants did not deny receiving this notice nor explain their failure to attend. Service on an advocate on record constitutes service on the party, and the same email address was routinely used for correspondence.

p. 11
02

Whether the delay of approximately four to five months was excusable

Holding

The delay was not excused; the applicants were guilty of laches and not deserving of the extension orders

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered in August 2025 after the applicants were duly notified, yet they approached the court four months later. Having been notified, their failure to attend or act on the judgment meant the delay was unexplained. Unexplained delay of that magnitude demonstrates laches and cannot constitute good and sufficient cause under Section 79G.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who has been notified of the delivery of judgment but fails to attend or act cannot later claim ignorance of the judgment as sufficient cause for extension of time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 27th January 2026 seeking leave to appeal out of time is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
On appeal from
Mavoko Law Courts (Magistrates' Court)
MCELRC/E065/2025 (Mavoko ELRC Cause No. E065 of 2022)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hirji Premji Dabasiya Hitesh v Evans Michoma Makwaro & Bhachu Industries Lukenya Site", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E004 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2594/eng@2026-09-24

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