https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1485

Aroni v Afro Spin Limited & 5 others (Cause 143 of 2017) [2026] KEELRC 1485 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1485 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause 143 of 2017 J Rika, J May 29, 2026 Between Robert Kabati Aroni Claimant and Afro Spin Limited 1st Respondent Nakuru Fibres Limited 2nd Respondent Valley Bakary Limited 3rd Respondent Flamingo Bottlers Limited 4th Respondent Buds and Blooms Limited 5th Respondent Fine Spinners Limited 6th Respondent Ruling 1.This Claim was filed 9 years ago, in 2017. 2.It was dismissed for non-attendance, on 24th February 2020. 3.The Claimant filed an application dated 26th January 2025, 5 years after dismissal of his Claim, asking the Court to reinstate the Claim. 4.He attributes failure to attend Court, and to prosecute his Claim, to his previous Advocates. He states that he kept calling his Advocates, who advised him, that the Claim was still pending in Court. 5.He states that he decided to travel from his home in Kisii, on an unspecified date, to the Court in Nakuru for enquiry, where he was informed that his Claim was dismissed 5 years back for non-attendance. 6.He changed his Advocates, instructing the new Advocates who have presented the application for reinstatement. 7.The application is anchored on the affidavit of the Claimant, sworn on 17th November 2017. 8.The Court has not seen any response to the application, filed by the Respondents. 9.The Claimant confirmed filing of his submissions at the last appearance before the Court, on 10th April 2026. The Court Finds: - 10.The Claimant took too long, before filing his application for reinstatement. He took a whole 5 years. He perhaps ought to have travelled to the Court in Nakuru from Kisii, sooner than he did. 11.The complaints he makes about his previous Advocates, are matters to be placed before the relevant professional body, not grounds warranting reinstatement of an old Claim, which was validly dismissed by the Court. 12.The Court will be hampered in implementation of its policy on clearance of case backlog, if it was to validly dismiss Claims for non-attendance or non-prosecution, and liberally reinstate them, in the interest of justice as urged by the Claimant. 13.The Claimant invokes Article 159 [2] [d] of the Constitution improperly. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to reinstate validly dismissed Claims, and to aid indolent parties, in the guise of administering ‘substantive justice’ under the organic law, as submitted by the Claimant. He filed a Claim 9 years ago, and failed to attend Court, when required to act on his Claim. Even after dismissal, it took him 5 years to seek reinstatement. 14.The application is completely unsustainable.It is ordered: -a.The application is dismissed with no order on the costs.b.This file shall be marked as closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE