[2017] KEELRC 1518 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1518 (KLR)

The court found that there had been no action taken to prosecute the cause for approximately three years, and that both parties failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite proper service of the hearing notice. The claimants, having acknowledged service, bore the responsibility to attend and prosecute their case....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1518 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Muriuki; Applicant: Peter Kioko; Applicant: Silas Omondi; Applicant: Mulwa Kioko; Respondent: Manson Hart Kenya Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 320 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
cause dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to Prosecute, Court Management, Hearing Notice
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Failure to Prosecute Court Management Hearing Notice

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

Charles Muriuki

Applicant

Peter Kioko

Applicant

Silas Omondi

Applicant

Mulwa Kioko

Applicant

Manson Hart Kenya Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of both parties at the scheduled hearing justifies dismissal of the cause.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been no action taken to prosecute the cause for approximately three years, and that both parties failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite proper service of the hearing notice. The claimants, having acknowledged service, bore the responsibility to attend and prosecute their case. The respondent had not filed any response or appeared. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution, holding that the prolonged inactivity and non-attendance by both parties justified dismissal. No order as to costs was made, considering the circumstances.

Court Disposition

cause dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The cause is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • There is no order as to costs.