Kenya Chemical Workers' Union v Mac’s Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause E912 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reopen a judgment against Mac's Pharmaceuticals because the company never explained why it stayed silent in court.
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 Respondent established sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion to set aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2024 and reinstate its Memorandum of Response
- 2.Whether the Respondent should be granted leave to file its Memorandum of Response and supporting documents out of time
- 3.Whether the Respondent explained its failure to participate in the Court process and its non-compliance with the condition for interim stay of execution
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was condemned unheard such that the judgment of 3 April 2024 should be set aside
The judgment was regular; the Respondent was served but chose not to participate, and its suspension by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board did not prevent it from defending the Cause
The Court found that service was not denied. The stoppage of manufacturing by the regulator caused financial hardship, but nothing in that order prevented the Respondent from instructing counsel or bringing its difficulties to the Court's attention. Failure to comply with the condition for interim stay further weighed against the exercise of discretion.
Whether the Court's discretion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a defence out of time should be exercised
The discretion was not exercised in the Respondent's favour because it did not comply with the condition for interim stay and advanced no sufficient ground
The Court acknowledged it had discretion (as supported by the authorities cited by the Respondent) but held that the applicant's conduct - non-compliance with the deposit condition and unexplained late filing of submissions - disentitled it from the discretionary relief sought.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking the exercise of the Court's discretion to set aside a regular judgment must both comply with conditions attached to interim relief and set out sufficient grounds for the discretion to be exercised in its favour
- Financial or regulatory difficulties do not excuse non-participation in court proceedings unless the party shows they made participation or instruction of an advocate impossible
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 25 February 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent is condemned to pay the Union's costs of the Motion due to the late filing of submissions without any explanation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (interlocutory Motion in a Cause); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is quoted in the judgment.
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2024 and all consequential orders, and reinstatement of the Respondent's Memorandum of Response for hearing on merit
The Respondent failed to comply with the condition for interim stay of execution and did not set out sufficient grounds for the exercise of the Court's discretion; it did not establish that the regulator's stoppage order made participation impossible
Leave to file the Memorandum of Response and supporting documents out of time
The alleged regulatory suspension and financial hardship did not explain the failure to instruct an advocate or participate in the proceedings
Costs of the application to be in the cause
Costs were instead awarded to the Union owing to the Respondent's unexplained late filing of submissions
Costs
Due to the late filing of submissions without any explanation, the Respondent is condemned to pay the Union's costs of the Motion.
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 Respondent has not denied that it was served with Court process.
the Respondent has not established how the stoppage order from the Pharmacy and Poisons Board made it impossible for it to participate in the Court process or to instruct an advocate to act on its behalf
It did not comply with a condition upon which the Court granted it an interim stay of execution. It has not set out a suficient ground for the Court to exercise the discretion in its favour.
The Motion dated 25 February 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed.
Due to the late filing of submissions without any explanation, the Respondent is condemned to pay the Union's costs of the Motion.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the Claimant Union is not stated anywhere in the judgment extract; it is referred to only as 'the Union', making full party identification impossible
The Cause number/case number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment extract
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers' Union v Mac’s Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause E912 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1402/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.