Karanja v Danka Africa

High Court, and that it is not unusual for Counsel to have more matters than was intended, on the same date. She submits that the Respondent’s right of fair hearing would be impaired, if the Claimant is not recalled. 10. The Claimant led a replying adavit on 13th May 2026. He states that the hearing date was taken by the Parties consensually. He presented himself before the Court at 9.00 a.m. ready to prosecute his Claim. The Respondent was represented by Counsel Ms. Watiri. 11. The Respondent conrmed readiness to proceed, and asked for time allotment at 12.00 o’clock. The Court allowed rescheduling to 11.30 a.m. The Claimant was heard at 11.30 a.m. while the Respondent indicated it was not yet ready to proceed. The Claimant states that the Respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine him, but its Counsel Ms. Watiri insisted that only Ms. Githi could crossexamine. 12. The Claimant submits therefore that the Respondent, cannot complain that it was denied fair hearing. 13. It was agreed by the Parties at the last mention on 11th May 2026, that the application is considered and determined on the strength of their adavits and submissions on record. The Court Finds: 14. The Respondent was granted adequate opportunity to participate in the hearing on 28th April 2026. 15. Although witnesses for both Parties were ready, and scheduled to be heard on this date, the Court accommodated the Respondent, by rescheduling hearing of its evidence, to 23rd September 2026. 16. The hearing date, it is to be noted, was scheduled by consent, by Counsel for the Parties. 17. There is no persuasive explanation given by the Counsel for the Respondent, why she opted to attend to proceedings elsewhere, while keeping this Court, and the Claimant waiting for over 2 hours. 18. Having been accommodated up to 11.30 a.m. would it not have been prudent for Counsel, to seek adjournment in these other proceedings, and attend to her brief before this Court? 19. This Court has explained to Parties appearing before it that ordinarily, it hears matters from 9.00 a.m. to around 1.00 p.m. The afternoons are occupied with preparation of Judgments and Rulings, as well as preparation of matters scheduled for the following day. To suggest that a hearing scheduled for 9.00 a.m. is deferred to 12.00 o’clock, severely impairs the Court’s workow. 20. The Claimant was terse in his evidence. He did not say much. He adopted his witness statement and documents, and oered himself for cross-examination. 21. There was no good reason why Counsel appearing for the Respondent on the material day, could not cross-examine the Claimant, in the absence for whatever reason, of the Lead Counsel. She had over 2 hours from 9.00 a.m. to familiarize with the witness statement of the Claimant. She recorded the Claimant’s evidence. She was presumed to have full authority in the matter, having been present throughout. 22. In fact, Ms. Watiri represented the Respondent in Court on 10th February 2026, when she informed the Court that the Claimant had not served the Respondent with a document marked ‘JN3.’ She sought leave for the Respondent to le additional documents. 23. She was in Court on 12th March 2026, and scheduled the date for hearing in concurrence with the Counsel for the Claimant. She informed the Court that the Claimant amended his list of documents, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2256/eng@2026-07-30 2

page 2 of 3

instead of ling the document as earlier directed. Ms. Watiri, as shown by the record, has interacted with the Claim, just as much as Ms. Githi. 24. She was not a stranger to the brief, and conrmed at 9.00 a.m. on 28th April 2026, that ‘’ we have one witness, we are ready.’’ She was not given impromptu instructions to hold brief, on the hearing date. She had instructions, as shown in her past appearances on behalf of the Respondent. 25. In the absence of Ms. Githi, there was nothing holding back Ms. Watiri from cross-examination of the Claimant, and even in presentation of the Respondent’s case. 26. The Court does not think it would be in keeping with the principle of fair hearing, to recall the Claimant and reopen his case, while he prosecuted his case on the date and time set by the Court with the concurrence of Counsel, and oered himself for cross-examination, but was not cross-examined. 27. The Court must retain the ability to manage its proceedings, and not bend backwards to accommodate Parties who fail to properly align their calendars, with that of the Court. The principle of fair hearing cuts both ways, and must not be abused to limit the Court, in its mandate to manage its proceedings. 28. In a worst case scenario, the Court could have dismissed the Respondent’s case on 28th April 2026, closed the proceedings in their entirety, after the Respondent failed to present its witness as scheduled. The Court instead, allowed the Respondent to adjourn its case. How was the Respondent’s right to fair hearing compromised? The Respondent has not been denied its right to present its case. It was oered the opportunity to cross-examine. There was no reason to adjourn the Claimant’s case. He was available, ready to prosecute his case, and to be cross-examined. He prosecuted his case to the end. He oered himself for cross-examination. It would be in violation of his right of fair hearing and vexatious to him, by reopening his case, and by bringing him back to Court for cross-examination at the convenience of the Respondent. It is ordered: a. The application by the Respondent dated 28th April 2026 is declined. b. Hearing of the Respondent’s case on 23rd September 2026, as scheduled. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026. JAMES RIKA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2256/eng@2026-07-30 3

page 3 of 3