Coast Mail Company Limited v Hussein (Appeal E069 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 appellant gave a plausible explanation for failure to file its Memorandum of Response within the time extended by the trial court on May 11, 2022
- 2.Whether the registry staff could lawfully reject pleadings filed out of time on the ground that accepting them would amount to contempt of the May 11, 2022 court orders
- 3.Whether the rejection of the appellant's pleadings at the registry denied the appellant a fair hearing and access to justice
- 4.Whether the trial court's ruling of October 6, 2022 should be set aside and the appellant allowed to file its response out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the registry's rejection of the appellant's out-of-time pleadings vitiated the trial court's ruling
Yes. The rejection of pleadings at the registry was an unlawful exercise of a judicial function by administrative staff and denied the appellant a fair chance to be heard on the merits.
The court held that while filing is administrative, acceptance or rejection of pleadings is a judicial function that only a judicial officer may exercise. Registry staff cannot refuse documents on the basis that accepting them would breach court orders, nor send litigants away. That burden would place staff in conflict with litigants and impede access to justice under Article 48. The rejection denied the appellant a fair hearing, and the presiding judicial officer should instead have addressed the timeliness issue in court, expunging the records if there was no good cause or hearing the matter on the merits if there was.
Whether the appellant's failure to account for the lapse between May 15, 2022 and October 6, 2022 warranted refusing relief
The lapse was not excused; the appellant is not an innocent party and was denied full relief as to costs, being condemned to pay the respondent's costs, though the substantive relief of being heard on the merits was granted.
The court noted that on the appellant's own chronology, the interim period between the dropped call on June 15, 2022 and the mention of October 6, 2022 was unaccounted for: no action was taken to secure the appellant's right to a hearing, and no response had been filed or attendance made on October 6, 2022. The court balanced this against the appellant's constitutional right to be heard on the merits, setting aside the ruling but requiring the appellant to bear the respondent's costs of the proceedings.
The overriding objective of the ELRC Act and the constitutional right of access to justice
ELRC proceedings under the 2016 Procedure Rules must be read with Section 3 of the ELRC Act, 2011, favouring just, expeditious, efficient and proportionate resolution of disputes, which supports hearing the appellant on the merits.
The court invoked Section 3 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011, whose principal objective is to facilitate just, expeditious, efficient and proportionate resolution of disputes, with parties obliged to assist the court and comply with directions. Read with Article 48 access to justice, this objective favoured setting aside the ruling so the appellant could file its response and the dispute be heard on the merits rather than determined on procedural default alone.
Legal principles established
#- The right to accept or reject pleadings or documents, whether filed in time or out of time, is a judicial function reserved to a judicial officer and cannot be exercised by registry staff.
- Registry staff cannot send a litigant away with their documents on the basis that they have been filed late; to do so would impede access to justice contrary to Article 48 of the Constitution.
- Whether a document is filed out of time should be addressed by the presiding judicial officer, who may expunge records without good cause or hear the matter on the merits where there is good cause.
- Access to justice entails giving each party a fair chance to be heard at the earliest.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling delivered on October 6, 2022 in respect of Mariakani ELRC No E022 of 2021 is set aside
- 2.The appellant is allowed 14 days from the date of the judgment to file responses out of time in compliance with Rule 13 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
- 3.The matter is remitted back to the trial court
- 4.The appellant is to meet the respondent's costs of these proceedings
- 5.Application dated October 13, 2022 is allowed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial court (magistrates' court) – Mariakani ELRC No E022 of 2021
- E022 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 8, 13(5) and 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 50, 48 and 159 of the Constitution
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.
filing of pleadings is an administrative matter addressed at the registry but the right to reject or accept pleadings, documents or any other matter filed in time or out of time is a judicial function.
The court stafi placed at the registries cannot send a litigant away with their documents on the basis that they have been filed late.
The upshot of it would be to impede access to justice contrary to Article 48 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, application dated October 13, 2022 is hereby allowed, the appellant has 14 days from the date hereon to comply with Rule 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 with respect to Mariakani ELRC No 022 of 2021; meet the respondent’s costs herein.
Matter shall be remitted back to the trial court.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is duplicated/irregular; two passages are both numbered 17 and several early paragraphs are numbered but blank.
The judgment does not state the appellant's or respondent's names, the title of the case, or the appeal/case number of the present proceedings; the coram identifies only the presiding judge.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Coast Mail Company Limited v Hussein (Appeal E069 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1202/eng@2023-05-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.