[2020] KEELRC 1624 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1624 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant took approximately seven months to file the application to review and set aside the dismissal order, with no explanation provided for this delay. The court also noted that the Claimant's advocate failed to provide sufficient details or evidence regarding his alleged engagement in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1624 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Judy Wamaitha Mwangi; Respondent: Paul Mopel; Respondent: California Bar & Butchery
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2116 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Non Attendance
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Review of Dismissal Orders, Non Attendance, Exercise of Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Dismissal Orders Non Attendance Exercise of Discretion 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judy Wamaitha Mwangi

Applicant

Paul Mopel

Respondent

California Bar & Butchery

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Non Attendance

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and set aside the order dismissing the application dated 21st January 2019 for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application and for non-attendance on the hearing date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant took approximately seven months to file the application to review and set aside the dismissal order, with no explanation provided for this delay. The court also noted that the Claimant's advocate failed to provide sufficient details or evidence regarding his alleged engagement in another court, such as the specific court, judicial officer, or supporting documentation. Additionally, the Claimant did not disclose the identity of the representative allegedly sent to seek an adjournment, nor was there any affidavit from this person. The court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that the Claimant had not demonstrated sufficient interest or...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 6 September 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.