[2015] KEELRC 821 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to comply with the express order to serve a hearing notice on the respondent for the hearing scheduled on 23 April 2015. There was no affidavit of service on record, and the claimant's explanation of arriving late did not amount to sufficient reason for non-attendance or for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 821 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Jackline Wambui Gitau; Respondent: Clinix Health Care Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 6 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- motion for reinstatement dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Cause, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Service of Hearing Notice
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jackline Wambui Gitau
Claimant
Clinix Health Care Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant provided sufficient reason for non-attendance on the hearing date to warrant reinstatement of the cause.
- 2 Whether the claimant complied with the court's peremptory order to serve a hearing notice on the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to comply with the express order to serve a hearing notice on the respondent for the hearing scheduled on 23 April 2015. There was no affidavit of service on record, and the claimant's explanation of arriving late did not amount to sufficient reason for non-attendance or for non-compliance with the court's directive. The absence of both parties and their advocates on the hearing date, coupled with the lack of evidence of service, led the court to conclude that the claimant had not met the threshold for reinstatement. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the claimant and dismissed the motion for reinstatement.
Court Disposition
motion for reinstatement dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated 23 April 2015 is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 6 OF 2014
JACKLINE WAMBUI GITAU CLAIMANT
v
CLINIX HEALTH CARE LTD RESPONDENT
RULING
The Cause herein was scheduled for hearing on 13 October 2014. When the Cause was called, Ms. Muthoni appeared for the Claimant while the Respondent was absent. The Court was not satisfied with the service of hearing notice and the hearing was rescheduled to 23 April 2015.
The Court directed the Claimant to serve a hearing notice.
Come 23 April 2015, when the Cause was called out for hearing none of the parties or their legal counsels were present. The Court therefore dismissed the Cause.
The Claimant filed a motion on 28 April 2015 seeking that the Cause be reinstated. The Court directed that the motion be served for inter partes hearing on 7 May 2015.
The Respondent did not appear during the inter partes hearing of the motion. There was evidence of service of the application upon William Lusweti, Advocate for the Respondent.
Ms. Muthoni therefore urged that the motion was not opposed and sought that it be allowed.
The Court has considered the motion and the grounds thereon and the supporting affidavit of Muthoni Muchiri.
When the Court adjourned the hearing on 13 October 2014, it was because there was no evidence on record that service had been effected.
While adjourning the hearing to 23 April 2015, the Claimant was expressly directed to serve a hearing notice. None of the parties was in Court when the Cause was called. The supporting affidavit stated that the Claimant arrived late.
The Court has looked at the record.
There is no evidence that the Claimant served a hearing notice upon the Respondent for the hearing set for 23 April 2015. There is no affidavit of service. From the record, it is therefore logical to conclude that the Claimant had not complied with peremptory orders on service of a hearing notice.
In the circumstances, the Court cannot accept the explanation by the Claimant that she was ready to proceed on 23 April 2015.
The Court is not satisfied that it should exercise its discretion in favour of the Claimant as no sufficient reasons have been given.
The motion dated 23 April 2015 is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 26th day of June 2015.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Ms. Muthoni instructed by Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Absent
Court Assistant Janet