Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Kenafric Industries Limited (Cause E1035 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1297 (KLR)

a misdiarising of the hearing date; the application had been filed expeditiously and that the interests of substantive justice favoured the grant of the orders sought. 3. The Court gave directions on the Motion on 3 February 2025, and the Respondent filed its submissions on 10 February 2025. 4. Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) (the Union) filed a replying afidavit and submissions on 21 February 2025. 5. In the afidavit, the Union’s advocate deponed that he served a hearing notice upon the Respondent; that there was no evidence of misdiarising of the hearing date; that the CTS system automatically updates the parties of dates, and that suficient reasons had not been given for the grant of the orders sought. 6. Pursuant to leave, the Respondent’s advocate filed a further afidavit on 28 February 2025, wherein he reiterated that he did not receive any notification from the CTS on the hearing date. 7. The Court has considered the Motion, afidavits and submissions. 8. The Respondent filed a Response which raised arguable points but it failed to attend the Court to advance its defence. 9. The failure to attend the hearing is attributed to a misdiarisation of the hearing date. 10. An examination of the CTS system indicates that the system generated an automatic sms notification which was sent to the parties’ telephone numbers 254729xxxxxx, 254703xxxxxx and 254710xxxxxx. 11. The Respondent’s explanation of misdiarisation in light of the fact that a hearing notice was served by the Claimant and a notification sent to the advocate’s phone is doubtful. 12. The Respondent seeks an exercise of the Court’s discretion (Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1974) EA 75). The discretion is exercised to do justice to the parties. 13. The Respondent had evinced an intention to defend the Cause by filing a Response and witness statement. 14. In this context, the Court will allow it to ventilate its defence on conditions. Orders 15. In light of the above, the Court orders: i. The judgment delivered on 30 January 2025 is set aside on conditions that the Respondent deposits the sum of Kshs 229,021/- in Court and pays the Claimant wasted costs of Kshs 20,000/- on or before the close of 15 May 2025. ii. In default of compliance with the conditions, the order setting aside the judgment will stand vacated without any further order from the Court. iii. If the conditions are complied with, hearing will be conducted on a date to be agreed on hereinafter. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 2025. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARB JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1297/eng@2025-05-08 2

page 2 of 3

Appearances For Claimant Amalemba & Associate Advocates For Respondent Chege Kibathi & Co. Advocates Court Assistant Wangu https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1297/eng@2025-05-08 3

page 3 of 3