Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialOtherNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2014] KEIC 5 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Leshau Boys High School [2014] KEIC 5 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
12 February 2014
BOBYRAM ONGAYA
332 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court barred a party from opposing a review application orally because they never filed a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition as required.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant, through counsel Mr. E. N. Njuguna, filed a notice of motion dated 05.12.2013 seeking review of the court's judgment, and the application was fixed for hearing on 12.02.2014. At the hearing, after the applicant's submissions, counsel for the Claimant/Respondent, Mr. H. Onwong'a, sought to oppose the application orally. Mr. Njuguna objected that no replying affidavit, preliminary objection or statement of grounds of opposition had been filed and served as required by Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Byram Ongaya, J, held that Rule 16(6) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 similarly requires a respondent wishing to oppose an application to file and serve a replying affidavit or statement of grounds within seven days of service of the application. The claimant/respondent had not complied and had not sought leave to file the opposing papers. The court found the failure was not merely procedural but substantive, because it denied the applicant the chance to respond to the opposition. The court directed that the application be determined solely on the applicant's submissions and the documents on record, with the ruling to be delivered on 14.02.2014 at 9.00 am. No costs order was made. This is an interlocutory direction, not a final determination of the review application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a respondent may oppose an application by oral submissions without filing the documents required under Rule 16(6) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010

Holding

The respondent may not; the application is to be determined on the applicant's submissions and the documents on record.

Reasoning

Rule 16(6) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, like Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requires a respondent wishing to oppose an application to file and serve a replying affidavit or statement of grounds within seven days of service of the application. The claimant/respondent did not comply and did not seek leave. The failure was not merely procedural but substantive, as it denied the applicant an opportunity to respond to the opposition.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A respondent wishing to oppose an application in the Industrial Court must file and serve a replying affidavit or statement of grounds within seven days of service of the application; failure to do so is both procedural and substantive and may bar the respondent from orally opposing the application.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application will be determined on the basis of submissions made for the applicant and the documents on record
  2. 2.Ruling shall be delivered on 14.02.2014 at 9.00 am
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, Rule 16(6); Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules (not expressly invoked as source of jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Leshau Boys High School [2014] KEIC 5 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2014/5/eng@2014-02-12

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