Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 73 of 2018· [2019] KECA 962 (KLR)

Juja Coffee Exporters Limited v Charles Okungu Odhiambo & 28 Others

Court of Appeal
14 February 2019
AVAlnashir VisramWKW. KaranjaFSF. Sichale
2,704 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal set aside a Ksh.16.4 million judgment against Juja Coffee Exporters because the company was never told the case was closing, restoring its right to defend itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondents, 29 former employees of Juja Coffee Exporters Limited, claimed compensation for unlawful termination before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa. Rika, J. delivered judgment on 16th June 2017 declaring the terminations unfair and awarding Ksh.16,433,800 plus certificates of service, costs and interest at 14% per annum. The appellant, which had participated in the trial but had not tendered its defence after its counsel failed to attend on 11th October 2016, filed a motion seeking stay of execution and setting aside of the judgment, alleging it had not been served with the mention notice of 7th November 2016 or the respondents' submissions. Rika, J. granted a conditional stay requiring deposit of the decretal sum, then dismissed both motions on 23rd November 2017. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal at Malindi (Visram, Karanja and Sichale JJ.A), arguing the judgment was irregular and that the judge had failed to apply the principles for setting aside judgments and had considered irrelevant factors. The Court framed a single issue: whether to interfere with the judge's discretion. Applying Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuku Mugiria and James Kanyiita Nderitu v Marios Philotas Ghikas, the Court held the trial was irregularly conducted: the judge should have inquired whether the appellant's counsel had notice of the mention date and should have ensured service of the respondents' submissions. The judge's misdirection justified appellate interference. The appeal was allowed; the judgment of 16th June 2017 was set aside and the appellant granted an opportunity to present its defence, with costs of the appeal to the appellant. The decision binds subordinate courts on the requirement of notice and service before judgment is entered against a participating party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court's conduct of the hearing and entry of judgment without notice to the appellant amounted to an irregular judgment warranting interference with the judge's discretion

Holding

Yes. The judge misdirected himself in failing to ensure the appellant had notice of the mention date and was served with the respondents' submissions; the manner of trial was irregular and the Court of Appeal was justified in interfering.

Reasoning

The court applied the principles in Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuku Mugiria on setting aside ex-parte judgments and on appellate interference with discretion (Mbogo v Shah). It found that after the appellant's counsel absented himself on 11th October 2016, the judge should have inquired whether counsel was aware of the mention date of 7th November 2016 and whether the appellant had been served with the respondents' submissions. Relying on James Kanyiita Nderitu v Marios Philotas Ghikas, orders made without notice to an affected party are irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae. Since the appellant had filed an appearance, defence and participated in trial, it was unjust to shut it out.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a judgment is irregularly obtained because a party was not given notice of proceedings or served with the other side's submissions, it must be set aside as a matter of right, without regard to triable issues or delay.
  • An appellate court may interfere with a trial judge's discretion where the judge misdirected himself on a matter and as a result arrived at a wrong decision.
  • A trial court must ensure that a party who has entered appearance, filed a defence and participated in the trial is given notice of mention dates and served with the opposing party's submissions before closing off its participation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellant's Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2017 is allowed in terms of Prayer 3
  2. 2.The judgment delivered on 16th June 2017 is set aside
  3. 3.The appellant is given an opportunity to present its defence
  4. 4.Costs of this appeal to the appellant
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Mombasa
ELRC Cause No. 307 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal against discretionary rulings of the ELRC (memorandum of appeal dated 9th May 2018); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Juja Coffee Exporters Limited v Charles Okungu Odhiambo & 28 Others", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/962/eng@2019-02-14

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