[2021] KEELRC 90 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 90 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants' failure to attend the virtual court session at the designated time was due to their own lateness, which was admitted in their supporting affidavit. The court held that failure to attend court at the directed time is not an excusable mistake warranting reinstatement of a dismissed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 90 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Fidelis Omwamba Onsong; Applicant: Moses Nyangena; Applicant: Nzilani Musyoki; Applicant: Duke Masire Nyakina; Applicant: Jeremiah Rawinja Miikobia & 1644 Others; Respondent: Tailors & Textile Workers Union; Respondent: Global Apparels (EPZ) Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E643 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Application, Virtual Court Attendance, Dismissal for Non Attendance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Reinstatement of Application Virtual Court Attendance Dismissal for Non Attendance

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelis Omwamba Onsong

Applicant

Moses Nyangena

Applicant

Nzilani Musyoki

Applicant

Duke Masire Nyakina

Applicant

Jeremiah Rawinja Miikobia & 1644 Others

Applicant

Tailors & Textile Workers Union

Respondent

Global Apparels (EPZ) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application

  1. 1 Whether the failure by the Claimants to attend the virtual court session constituted sufficient cause for reinstatement of their dismissed application.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the Claimants' application for hearing on its merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants' failure to attend the virtual court session at the designated time was due to their own lateness, which was admitted in their supporting affidavit. The court held that failure to attend court at the directed time is not an excusable mistake warranting reinstatement of a dismissed application. The court emphasized that parties are expected to be diligent, especially in the context of virtual hearings where physical travel is not a factor. The Claimants' lack of vigilance, including their delayed follow-up with the court, further undermined their case for reinstatement. Consequently, the application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the earlier...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 24th November 2021 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.