Kevin Michael Dunlop v CMC Motors Group Limited & another [2014] KEELRC 16 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to strike out a defence filed on time but served late, and refused a Kshs.12.5 million security deposit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st Respondent's Statement of Defence dated 16th December 2013 and filed on 18th December 2013 should be struck out and judgment entered for the Claimant as prayed in the Memorandum of Claim
- 2.Whether in the alternative the 1st Respondent should be ordered to deposit Kshs.12,504,076.00 in court as security for satisfaction of any decree
Key legal issues
#Whether the Statement of Defence should be struck out for failure/delay in service
No; the defence is on the court file and the explanation for the delay was reasonable, so the applicant may simply obtain a copy and respond
The court found that the Memorandum of Defence was already in the court file, meaning the Claimant suffered no prejudice and could access and respond to it. A reasonable explanation existed for the delay in service. Striking out a defence is a draconian remedy not warranted in these circumstances, so the first prayer failed.
Whether security for due satisfaction of a decree should be ordered against the 1st Respondent
No; the 1st Respondent is a listed public company and any takeover would be governed by law protecting litigants with pending suits
The court reasoned that because the 1st Respondent is a public company listed on the Kenya Stock Market, any prospective takeover would be regulated by law, and that regulatory regime would safeguard the interests of persons with pending suits against it. The deposit of Kshs.12,504,076/= as security was therefore unnecessary and the prayer lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- A defence on the file with a reasonable explanation for delay in service is not a candidate for striking out
Court orders
#- 1.The application for striking out the Statement of Defence was refused (no basis for the orders sought)
- 2.The application to compel the 1st Respondent to deposit Kshs.12,504,076/= as security is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Industrial Court) first-instance jurisdiction over the Memorandum of Claim; no specific provision quoted
Relief refused
#Striking out the 1st Respondent's Statement of Defence and entering judgment for the Claimant
The Memorandum of Defence is on the court file and a reasonable explanation was given for the delay in serving it
Order for deposit of Kshs.12,504,076.00 as security
The 1st Respondent is a publicly listed company and the law governing any takeover would protect persons with pending suits against it
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Application to get the 1st Respondent to deposit the sum of Kshs.12,504,076/= as security for satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against it lacks merit and same is dismissed with costs.
There is no basis at all for the orders sought in that: the Memorandum of Defence is in the Court file
Issues in the judgment
#The numbering of the judgment's paragraphs is irregular (jumps from paragraph 2 to paragraphs 4 and 5; paragraph 3 appears missing), suggesting an incomplete record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kevin Michael Dunlop v CMC Motors Group Limited & another [2014] KEELRC 16 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/16/eng@2014-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.