Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt provided (referred to as a 'Cause')

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

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 May 2025
RSRadido Stephen
604 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court set aside a judgment against Kenafric Industries, but only after it deposited the decretal sum and paid the union wasted costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion by Kenafric Industries Ltd, the Respondent in a labour Cause in which judgment had been entered against it on 30 January 2025 after it failed to attend the hearing. The Respondent sought to set aside the judgment and reopen the suit so it could cross-examine the Claimant and prosecute its defence, attributing its non-attendance to an inadvertent mistake by its advocate in misdiarising the hearing date. The Union, the Claimant, opposed the application through a replying affidavit and submissions, contending that a hearing notice had been served, that the CTS system automatically notifies parties of dates, and that no sufficient reasons had been shown. The Respondent's advocate filed a further affidavit asserting he received no CTS notification. Examining the CTS system, the court found automatic SMS notifications had been sent to the parties' telephone numbers, and it considered the misdiarisation explanation doubtful in light of the served hearing notice and phone notification. Nonetheless, because the Respondent had filed a Response raising arguable points and a witness statement, evincing an intention to defend, the court exercised its discretion (guided by Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd) to set aside the judgment on conditions: deposit of Kshs 229,021/- in court and payment of Kshs 20,000/- wasted costs to the Claimant by 15 May 2025, failing which the setting aside would stand vacated; compliance would lead to a hearing on a date to be agreed. Costs were to be in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Respondent has given sufficient reasons for setting aside the judgment entered against it on 30 January 2025
  2. 2.Whether the discretion to set aside the ex parte judgment should be exercised in favour of the Respondent, and on what conditions

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether failure to attend hearing due to alleged misdiarisation justifies setting aside judgment

Holding

The court found the explanation doubtful but, because the Respondent had evinced an intention to defend by filing a Response and witness statement, it allowed the defence to be ventilated on conditions

Reasoning

The court weighed the Respondent's excuse against objective evidence: the CTS system generated automatic SMS notifications and the Claimant served a hearing notice. Although the misdiarisation claim was doubtful, the Respondent had filed a Response raising arguable points and a witness statement, demonstrating an intention to defend. The discretion was therefore exercised in favour of setting aside the judgment, but subject to conditions - a deposit of the decretal sum and wasted costs - to balance the interests of both parties and do substantive justice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment is exercised to do justice to the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment delivered on 30 January 2025 is set aside on conditions that the Respondent deposits Kshs 229,021/- in Court and pays the Claimant wasted costs of Kshs 20,000/- on or before the close of 15 May 2025
  2. 2.In default of compliance with the conditions, the order setting aside the judgment will stand vacated without any further order from the Court
  3. 3.If the conditions are complied with, hearing will be conducted on a date to be agreed on hereinafter
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the cause (as sought in the Motion)

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court's inherent/appellate-free first-instance jurisdiction over a labour Cause; no specific provision cited

Relief refused

#

Unconditional setting aside of the judgment

The court conditioned the setting aside on a deposit and payment of wasted costs, finding the explanation of misdiarisation doubtful

p. 2

Costs

Costs of the application to be in the cause (as sought in the Motion); the Claimant was awarded wasted costs of Kshs 20,000/- as a condition of the setting aside

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 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.
p. 2Final orders - conditional setting aside of judgment
In default of compliance with the conditions, the order setting aside the judgment will stand vacated without any further order from the Court.
p. 2Default clause
In this context, the Court will allow it to ventilate its defence on conditions.
p. 2Discretion exercised on conditions
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.
p. 2Credibility of the excuse for non-attendance

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The Motion's prayer (ii) is blank in the judgment text ('…'), so the full relief sought cannot be verified

minor

The Cause number is not reproduced in the judgment text provided

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Kenafric Industries Limited (Cause E1035 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1297 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided (referred to as a 'Cause'). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1297/eng@2025-05-08

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