Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kenya set aside consent orders issued on 24 April 2023 in the case of Evans Mugambi Mberia v Mount Kenya University. The court found that the Claimant's counsel misrepresented that an agreement on liability had been reached, when in fact no written consensus existed. The Respondent sought to vacate the orders to avoid being condemned without proper representation, citing ongoing negotiations that had not finalized terms of compensation for unfair termination of employment.
Issues
- Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Respondent was unfair and the validity of the consent order on liability.
- Who should bear the costs associated with the case, particularly in relation to the Notice of Motion and subsequent proceedings.
- Whether the consent order entered in favour of the Claimant on 24th April 2023 was valid given the lack of written agreement and alleged misrepresentation by the Claimant's counsel.
Holdings
- The court emphasized that a consent judgment must be freely agreed upon by both parties and can only be varied on grounds like fraud or misrepresentation. It ruled that the Claimant's counsel misrepresented the status of negotiations, leading to an unjust order against the Respondent.
- The court set aside the consent orders issued on 24th April 2023, finding they were based on misrepresentation by the Claimant's counsel and lacked written agreement from the Respondent. The application to review these orders was allowed due to the absence of a valid consent process.
Remedies
- Costs shall be in the cause, meaning the Respondent will bear the costs associated with the case following the court's determination.
- The court set aside the consent orders issued on 24th April 2023, which had recorded liability in favour of the Claimant, due to misrepresentation of facts by the Claimant's counsel.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized the fundamental principle of natural justice, stating that both parties deserve a proper opportunity to advance their cases on the merits. This principle is rooted in the right to access justice under Article 48 of the Kenyan Constitution and the court's duty to eschew undue technicalities as per Article 159(2)(d).
- The court highlighted the discretionary power to set aside consent orders when obtained through misrepresentation or without proper written agreement, citing cases such as Patel v E.A Cargo Handling Services [1974] EA 75. The ruling underscores that consent judgments must be freely agreed upon and supported by documentary evidence to avoid being invalidated.
Precedent Name
- Gurpreet Singh v Chatur Bhuj Goel
- Patrick Omondi Opiyo t/a Dallas Pub V Shaban Keab & another
- Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
- Wema Foundation Trust Co. Ltd v County Government of Nairobi City & another
- PMM V JNW
- Sarova Hotels Ltd India v Placid Properties Ltd Gross & Co. Advocates
- Munyiri v Ndunguya
- Patel v E.A Cargo Handling Services
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Constitution of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
Dr. Jacob Gakeri
Passage Text
- 47. In the absence of documentary evidence to show that the parties had indeed agreed on the question of liability, the Claimant's counsel's statement to the court on 24th April, 2023 on the issue would appear to have been a misrepresentation of the status of the negotiations and precipitated the instant application.
- 46. It is trite that a consent judgement must have been agreed upon by the parties freely and can only be varied or rescinded on the same grounds on which a contract may be set aside such as fraud, misrepresentation or other vitiating element of a contract.
- 51. Based on the foregoing, the court is satisfied that the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 12th September, 2023 has merit and it is hereby allowed.