George Peter Mutiso v Jimack Enginnering Workshop [2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Panel
- NJ Abuodha
- Case number
- Cause 726 of 2011
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Panel
- NJ Abuodha
- Case number
- Cause 726 of 2011
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
George Peter Mutiso
Claimant Counsel: Mr. MutukuJimack Enginnering Workshop
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Gichamba03
Procedural history
Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the claimant has provided sufficient justification to set aside the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
- 02
Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and prejudicial to the respondent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that they were not served with a notice to show cause prior to the dismissal and claimed, without substantiation, that the suit had suffered delays due to sudden closure of the court diary on several occasions.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that there was inordinate delay by the claimant in prosecuting the suit, which was prejudicial and not remediable by costs, and that the claimant failed to take any steps to progress the matter for several years.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Utalii Transport Company Limited and 3 others Vs. NIC Bank & another [2014] eKLR
It is the primary duty of the plaintiffs to take steps to progress their case since they are the ones who dragged the defendant in court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The suit has been hovering over the head of the respondent for over five years, causing prejudice that cannot be remedied by costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application to set aside the dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Employment and Labour Relations Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 726 OF 2011
GEORGE PETER MUTISO …….…………………… CLAIMANT
VERSUS
JIMACK ENGINNERING WORKSHOP ……..... RESPONDENT
Mr. Mutuku for claimant/applicant
Mr. Gichamba for respondent
RULING
1. The suit was dismissed by Hon. Byram Ongaya suo moto on 19th April 2016 for want of prosecution. Court notes that at the time, the court had a service week to deal with matters that had not been prosecuted for a long time.
2. The suit was filed in this court on 8th of May 2011.
3. From the record, the last step by the parties was on 15th June 2012, when Mr. Omogo for Mr. Amata for the claimant took a hearing date before Hon. Justice Paul Kosgei for 19th October 2012.
4. No other step was taken by the claimant until when a hearing notice dated 22nd March 2016 was issued to the parties by the court and both parties did not appear for the hearing.
5. The applicant states that they were not served with a notice to show cause and also states without substantiation that the suit had fallen victim to sudden closure of the court diary on several occasions.
6. The record does not show any attempt by the claimant to take a hearing or mention date between 15th June 2012 and 19th April 2016, when the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. The court agrees with the finding in Utalii Transport Company Limited and 3 others Vs. NIC Bank & another [2014] eKLR where the judge stated “it is the primary duty of the plaintiffs to take steps to progress their case since they are the ones who dragged the defendant in court.”
8. It is clear that the inordinate delay by the claimant is prejudicial to the respondent in a manner that cannot be remedied by costs. The suit has been hovering over the head of the respondent for over five years.
9. The court finds no justification to set aside the order of Ongaya J. to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
10. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 18th day of August, 2017.
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Nairobi this 18th day of August, 2017.
JORAM NELSON ABUODHA
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
………………………………………….………………..
……….……………………………….………………….
………………………………………….………..………
…………………………………………….……………..
………………………………………………….………..
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.