[2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit between June 2012 and April 2016, resulting in an inordinate delay. The court held that such delay was prejudicial to the respondent and could not be remedied by an award of costs. The court further found no justification to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: George Peter Mutiso; Respondent: Jimack Enginnering Workshop
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 726 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NJ Abuodha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Duty to Prosecute, Setting Aside Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay Duty to Prosecute Setting Aside 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Peter Mutiso

Claimant

Jimack Enginnering Workshop

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has provided sufficient justification to set aside the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and prejudicial to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit between June 2012 and April 2016, resulting in an inordinate delay. The court held that such delay was prejudicial to the respondent and could not be remedied by an award of costs. The court further found no justification to set aside the dismissal order, emphasizing the claimant's primary responsibility to progress their case. The application to set aside the dismissal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.