[2021] KEELRC 354 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant had not taken any steps to prosecute the claim since it was certified ready for hearing on 26th February 2019, nor had she responded to the application for dismissal. The absence of any action or explanation from the Claimant demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Joyce Mukonyo Muindi; Respondent: Spic ‘N’ Span Cleaning Services
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 123 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- claim dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Court Procedure, Case Management
- 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
Joyce Mukonyo Muindi
Claimant
Spic ‘N’ Span Cleaning Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules.
- 2 Whether the Claimant has shown reasonable cause for the delay in prosecuting the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant had not taken any steps to prosecute the claim since it was certified ready for hearing on 26th February 2019, nor had she responded to the application for dismissal. The absence of any action or explanation from the Claimant demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Applying Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution, as no reasonable cause for the delay was shown.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 1230 OF 2017
JOYCE MUKONYO MUINDI...........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
SPIC ‘N’ SPAN CLEANING SERVICES..................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By its Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2020, the Respondent seeks dismissal of the Claimant’s claim for want of prosecution.
2. The Motion is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent’s Counsel, Diana Odero and is based on the following grounds:
a) That since the institution of the case on 30th June 2017, it has never been prosecuted;
b) That the Claimant is therefore not interested in prosecuting her case.
3. The Claimant did not respond to the application in spite of due service.
4. Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules provides as follows:
(1) In any suit in which no application has been made in accordance with Rule 15 or no action has been taken by either party within one year from the date of its filing, the Court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed and if no reasonable cause is shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
(2) If reasonable cause is given to the satisfaction of the Court, it may make such orders as it thinks fit to obtain expeditious hearing and determination of the suit.
(3) A party to the suit may apply for dismissal as provided in paragraph (1).
(4) The Court may dismiss the suit for non-compliance with any direction given under this rule.
5. According to the record, this matter was last in court on 26th February 2019, when Wasilwa J certified it ready for hearing and directed the parties to take a hearing date at the Registry.
6. No action was taken until the present application for dismissal of the claim for want of prosecution.
7. Moreover, the Claimant did not bother to respond to the application.
8. It is therefore evident that the Claimant is no longer interested in pursuing the claim.
9. In the premises, the claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
10. Each party will bear their own costs.
11. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE CLAIMANT
MISS ODERO FOR THE RESPONDENT