[2020] KEELRC 14 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 14 (KLR)

The court found that although the claimant had not taken steps to prosecute the suit since 3rd October, 2018, the explanation provided for the delay was not entirely satisfactory. However, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit at this stage, emphasizing the importance of hearing matters on their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 14 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Dr George Wekesa; Respondent: Multimedia University of Kenya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1682 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed with conditions.
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Costs Award, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Management Costs Award Delay in Prosecution

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr George Wekesa

Claimant

Multimedia University of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has shown reasonable cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs for the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the claimant had not taken steps to prosecute the suit since 3rd October, 2018, the explanation provided for the delay was not entirely satisfactory. However, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit at this stage, emphasizing the importance of hearing matters on their merits. The court imposed a sanction on the claimant by awarding costs to the respondent and requiring the claimant to fix a hearing date within 30 days, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The court underscored that litigants must be proactive in prosecuting their cases and cannot rely on the court's prioritization of older matters as an excuse for inaction.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed with conditions.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay respondent's costs assessed at KES 50,000 within 30 days.
  • Claimant to secure a hearing date within 30 days.