[2014] KEELRC 27 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 27 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants failed to provide credible or consistent reasons for their absence and non-prosecution of the application on 14th November 2014. The explanation regarding the advocate's illness was unsupported by the treatment card, which indicated treatment two days prior to the hearing. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELRC 27 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gregory Mareko; Applicant: Clement Libuko; Applicant: James Mbwabi; Applicant: Bworu Barisa; Applicant: Marshal Khayoko; Respondent: The National General Secretary, Dock Workers Union (DWU); Respondent: Dock Workers Union
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Case Number
Cause 532 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Outcome
application for reinstatement refused
Legal Topics
Trade Union Affiliation, Reinstatement of Application, Industrial Court Procedure, Adjournment Practice
Source Language
english
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Trade Union Affiliation Reinstatement of Application Industrial Court Procedure Adjournment Practice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Mareko

Applicant

Clement Libuko

Applicant

James Mbwabi

Applicant

Bworu Barisa

Applicant

Marshal Khayoko

Applicant

The National General Secretary, Dock Workers Union (DWU)

Respondent

Dock Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants have established sufficient grounds to set aside the dismissal order of 14th November 2014 and reinstate their application.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants' application for reinstatement is procedurally proper under the applicable rules of the Industrial Court.
  3. 3 Whether the reasons advanced for non-attendance and non-prosecution of the application on 14th November 2014 are credible and sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants failed to provide credible or consistent reasons for their absence and non-prosecution of the application on 14th November 2014. The explanation regarding the advocate's illness was unsupported by the treatment card, which indicated treatment two days prior to the hearing. The court also noted that the grounds advanced for adjournment at the time differed from those presented in the reinstatement application. Furthermore, the application to reinstate was procedurally defective, having been brought under the Civil Procedure Act rather than the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules. The court held that there were no sufficient grounds to revisit or set aside...

Court Disposition

application for reinstatement refused

Orders

  • The Claimants' application dated 28th November 2014 is refused.
  • Costs in the cause.