[2017] KEELRC 1527 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1527 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants had failed to take any steps to prosecute the Cause since the last court appearance in September 2014, despite being served with a hearing notice in March 2017. The Claimants and their advocate did not appear at the scheduled hearing on 3rd April 2017 and provided no explanation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1527 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Oyucho; Applicant: Erastus Wabolinga; Applicant: Charles Ondieki; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Unions; Interested Party: Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2081B of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Cause dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Court Attendance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Management Court Attendance

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Oyucho

Applicant

Erastus Wabolinga

Applicant

Charles Ondieki

Applicant

Registrar of Trade Unions

Respondent

Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the Cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the Claimants.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of the Claimants or their advocate at the hearing warrants dismissal of the Cause.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants had failed to take any steps to prosecute the Cause since the last court appearance in September 2014, despite being served with a hearing notice in March 2017. The Claimants and their advocate did not appear at the scheduled hearing on 3rd April 2017 and provided no explanation for their absence. The Respondent applied for dismissal for want of prosecution. The court, exercising its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and guided by the need for expeditious disposal of cases, determined that the prolonged inaction and non-appearance by the Claimants justified dismissal of the Cause. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Cause dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Cause is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • There is no order as to costs.