Everlyn Cherotich Maiyo v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Onesmus N. Makau
Judgment Date
October 22, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the key details and implications of the Everlyn Cherotich Maiyo v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another [2020] eKLR case. Explore the summary and legal insights now.

Case Brief: Everlyn Cherotich Maiyo v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Everlyn Cherotich Maiyo v. Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & Kevin Aswani
- Case Number: Cause No. 632 of 2019
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 22, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Onesmus N. Makau
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the Respondent (Kenya Commercial Bank Limited) has met the legal threshold necessary to set aside the court's previous order for the matter to proceed by formal proof, and whether the Respondent should be allowed to file a defense after failing to do so within the stipulated time.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Claimant, Everlyn Cherotich Maiyo, filed a claim against the 1st Respondent, Kenya Commercial Bank Limited, and the 2nd Respondent, Kevin Aswani, alleging serious claims related to her employment. The Respondent entered an appearance on September 14, 2019, but failed to file a Memorandum of Response. By March 4, 2020, the court directed that the matter proceed by formal proof due to the absence of a filed defense. The Respondent claimed that the delay in filing was due to difficulties in obtaining necessary information from its Kitale branch, where the events leading to the claim occurred.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of the claim on September 25, 2019. The Respondent entered an appearance on October 17, 2019, but did not file a defense. Following the court's order on March 4, 2020, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion on May 27, 2020, seeking to set aside the formal proof direction and extend the time to file a defense. The Claimant opposed this application, arguing that the Respondent's failure was not justified and had caused her undue hardship.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant case law, including *James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v. Mario Philotas Ghikas & another [2017] eKLR*, which established the discretion of the court to set aside judgments based on various factors such as the reason for the failure to file a defense, the length of delay, and whether the intended defense raises triable issues.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Patel v. East Africa Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1974) EA 75*, which emphasized the importance of having a defense on the merits, and *Shah v. Mbogo and Another [1967] EA 116*, highlighting that discretion should be exercised to avoid injustice. The court found that the Respondent's delay in filing was unreasonable and inadequately explained.
- Application: The court determined that while the Respondent had failed to meet the timeline for filing a defense, the draft defense raised triable issues that warranted a hearing. The court balanced the potential prejudice to both parties and concluded that the Claimant would suffer irreparable harm if the Respondent were denied the opportunity to present its case.

6. Conclusion:
The court allowed the Respondent's application to set aside the order for formal proof, granting 14 days for the Respondent to file a defense. The court emphasized the importance of justice and fair hearing, concluding that the Respondent's failure to file was not deliberate negligence.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion expressed in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, allowing the application to set aside the previous order and granting time to file a defense. The decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that parties have the opportunity to present their cases, reflecting a balance between procedural adherence and the pursuit of justice. The court's ruling may have broader implications for similar cases where procedural delays occur, highlighting the importance of assessing the context and reasons behind such delays.

This case is significant as it illustrates the court's discretion in managing procedural issues while ensuring that justice is served, particularly in employment-related disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Everlyn-Cherotich-Maiyo-v-Kenya-Commercial-Bank-Limited--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2237_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries