[2018] KEELRC 487 (KLR)
The court found that the time lapse between the last court appearance and the filing of the application for dismissal was less than one year. There was no evidence of proceedings on the scheduled hearing date, and any adjournment may have been occasioned by the court itself rather than by either party. The delay did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 487 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Brownson Kiteria; Respondent: Pempa Investment Limited t/a Neptune Beach Hotel
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 379 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Pretrial Procedure, Dismissal of Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brownson Kiteria
Claimant
Pempa Investment Limited t/a Neptune Beach Hotel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to alleged delay.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit exceeded the statutory threshold under Order 11 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
- 3 Whether the respondent contributed to the delay by failing to comply with pretrial rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the time lapse between the last court appearance and the filing of the application for dismissal was less than one year. There was no evidence of proceedings on the scheduled hearing date, and any adjournment may have been occasioned by the court itself rather than by either party. The delay did not surpass the statutory threshold required for dismissal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the court held that there was no sufficient basis to dismiss the claim and directed the claimant to set the matter down for hearing within forty-five days.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- The claimant shall set down the matter for hearing within forty-five (45) days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 379 OF 2015
BROWNSON KITERIA.......................................................................................CLAIMANT
VS
PEMPA INVESTMENT LIMITED T/A NEPTUNE BEACH HOTEL......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By its application brought by Notice of Motion dated 31st May 2018 and filed in court on 6th June 2018, the Respondent seeks dismissal of the Claimant’s claim for want of prosecution.
2. The application which is supported by the affidavit of Joseph Karanja Kanyi, Advocate is based on the ground that over the last one year, the Claimant had not taken any step to prosecute the matter.
3. In his supporting affidavit, Counsel depones that the matter was last in court on 27th January 2017.
4. The Claimant’s response is contained in a replying affidavit sworn by Lumatete Muchai, Advocate on 16th August 2018. He depones that the matter was last in court for hearing on 29th November 2017.
5. Counsel states that there has been no delay and states that by the time the current application was filed on 31st May 2018, only 6 months had lapsed since the Claimant’s last step towards prosecution of the suit, on 30th October 2017, when he took a hearing date and served a hearing notice on the Respondent.
6. It is further deponed that there is no prolonged delay to warrant dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution because the delay complained of by the Respondent does not go beyond the one year provided for in order 11 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
7. Counsel for the Claimant accuses the Respondent of failure to comply with pretrial rules thus contributing to delay in prosecution of the matter.
8. Perusal of the court record reveals that this matter was last in court for pretrial directions on 21st July 2017 on which date the matter was fixed for hearing on 29th November 2017. There is no evidence of any proceedings on 29th November 2017 nor was there endorsement on the court file indicating the reason as to why the matter did not take off. It could well be that an adjournment was occasioned by the Court itself.
9. The emerging position therefore is that the matter was last in court on 21st July 2017, with a possibility of an adjournment on 29th November 2017 not at the instance of either party. The resulting time lapse from the last court appearance and the filing of the application for dismissal would translate to less than a year and the Court finds no reason to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution.
10. The application is therefore dismissed with the caveat that the Claimant shall set down the matter for hearing within the next three forty five (45) days from the date of this ruling.
11. The costs of this application will be in the cause.
12. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Lumatete Muchai for the Claimant
Mr. Maundu for the Respondent