[2021] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)

The court found that the 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their claims since the Court of Appeal's partial determination in 2019, despite being served and prompted. The claimants' counsel did not attend the hearing or respond to the application. The court held that the delay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Nyamai; Applicant: Fredrick Chibole Musa; Applicant: Harrison Irungu Maina; Applicant: James Njoroge Kiura; Applicant: James Kenneth Kiarie Nganga; Applicant: Joseph Ojwang Owino; Applicant: Josephat Musyoki Mutua; Applicant: Peter Mwaniki Njogu; Respondent: Del Monte Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 136 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application allowed; claims by 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants dismissed for want of prosecution; each party to bear own costs
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Orders, Case Management
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Orders Case Management

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Nyamai

Applicant

Fredrick Chibole Musa

Applicant

Harrison Irungu Maina

Applicant

James Njoroge Kiura

Applicant

James Kenneth Kiarie Nganga

Applicant

Joseph Ojwang Owino

Applicant

Josephat Musyoki Mutua

Applicant

Peter Mwaniki Njogu

Applicant

Del Monte Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the claims by the 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have demonstrated sufficient interest or action to prosecute their claims.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their claims since the Court of Appeal's partial determination in 2019, despite being served and prompted. The claimants' counsel did not attend the hearing or respond to the application. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, amounting to a lack of interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the claims for want of prosecution. The court further ordered that each party bear their own costs, considering the history and conduct of the matter.

Court Disposition

application allowed; claims by 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants dismissed for want of prosecution; each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • The claims against the 4th, 5th, and 8th claimants are dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the application and the main cause in this respect.