[2016] KEELRC 1355 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1355 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for over four years since the last action on 22 October 2012. Despite being notified of the service week and hearing date, neither the Claimant nor her advocate appeared in court. The Respondent's preliminary objection regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1355 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Ann Wanjiku Mwangi; Respondent: Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 418 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Non Prosecution
Outcome
Cause dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Limitation Periods, Preliminary Objection, Dismissal for Non Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Limitation Periods Preliminary Objection Dismissal for Non Prosecution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Wanjiku Mwangi

Claimant

Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Non Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the cause should be dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for over four years since the last action on 22 October 2012. Despite being notified of the service week and hearing date, neither the Claimant nor her advocate appeared in court. The Respondent's preliminary objection regarding limitation was noted but not prosecuted. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the cause for non-attendance and non-prosecution, emphasizing the need to manage backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The dismissal was based on the Claimant's inaction and failure to prosecute the matter, rather than a determination on the merits of the preliminary objection.

Court Disposition

Cause dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution.

Orders

  • The cause is dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution as no steps have been taken for over 4 years.