[2022] KEELRC 738 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over five years after the interim orders were discharged and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay. The court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay is prejudicial to the respondent and the administration of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 738 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union; Respondent: Maisha Mabati Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 384 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Failure to Prosecute, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Kenya Engineering Workers Union
Applicant
Maisha Mabati Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the claimant.
- 2 Whether the claimant provided reasonable justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the respondent suffered prejudice due to the claimant's delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over five years after the interim orders were discharged and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay. The court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay is prejudicial to the respondent and the administration of justice. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and ordered the claimant to pay the costs of the suit.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The claimant shall pay the costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE N0. 384 OF 2016
KENYA ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION..........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MAISHA MABATI LIMITED...............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The claimant was called upon to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution by a notice to show cause dated 11th February, 2021.
2. The suit was filed on 11th March, 2016 under a Certificate of Urgency and interim injunction was issued by Mbaru, J. on 14th March, 2016.
3. A notice of Preliminary Objection to the suit was filed on 18th March, 2016 together with grounds of opposition to the suit of even date.
4. The interim orders were discharged by Abuodha, J. on 21st March, 2016 and the suit was stood over generally for failure by the claimant to attend Court on the day.
5. From the record, the claimant did not take any further step in the matter until the Notice to Show /cause was served on the 11th February, 2021.
6. The claimant filed a replying affidavit sworn to by one Chanzu Bumale in which there is no reasonable explanation why the claimant not only failed to prosecute the notice of motion filed on a certificate of urgency together with the statement of claim on 11th March 2016, but also failed to prosecute the suit for a period of over five (5) years.
7. The respondent in their grounds of opposition clearly stated that thematter complained of by the claimant did not exist since the respondent had not and did not have any intention to outsource its core mandate. The respondent further emphasized that no dispute has been reported to the Ministry of Labour regarding the alleged dispute before filing the suit.
8. The Court is satisfied that the claimant has not shown any interest to prosecute this suit to conclusion. The delay in prosecuting the suit for over (5) years without any reasonable justification is prejudicial to the respondent and to the administration of justice in particular.
9. The Court finds that there is good cause to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution by the claimant and orders accordingly. The claimant shall pay the costs of the suit.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI (VIRTUALLY) THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Haraka for claimant
Mr. Wambua for Respondent
Ekale – Court Assistant.