[2020] KEELRC 321 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 321 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's motion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was overtaken by events because the suit had already been dismissed on 20 July 2018 due to non-attendance by both parties and failure to comply with court orders. The court also noted that the claimant had previously instructed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 321 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Baldwin Norman Aunda; Respondent: Kenya Wildlife Service
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1763 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application overtaken by events; no further orders issued
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Review of Dismissal Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Review of Dismissal Orders

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

Baldwin Norman Aunda

Claimant

Kenya Wildlife Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's motion to dismiss was competent given prior dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's instructions to withdraw the suit had legal effect.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's motion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was overtaken by events because the suit had already been dismissed on 20 July 2018 due to non-attendance by both parties and failure to comply with court orders. The court also noted that the claimant had previously instructed his advocate to withdraw the suit, but the advocate did not act on those instructions. As a result, the respondent's application was marked as overtaken by events and no further orders were necessary.

Court Disposition

application overtaken by events; no further orders issued

Orders

  • The respondent's motion dated 28 February 2020 is marked as overtaken by events.