[2024] KEELRC 23 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 23 (KLR)

The court found that although the claimant had failed to take steps to prosecute the case since October 2021 and had filed an un-commissioned affidavit in response to the application, the oral submissions by the claimant's representative, citing ill health due to an accident, provided a reasonable explanation for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 23 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union; Respondent: Metal Equipment Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E272 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution declined.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Court Discretion, Costs in the Cause
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Court Discretion Costs in the Cause

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

Kenya Engineering Workers Union

Applicant

Metal Equipment Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the claimant's inaction.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for the delay in prosecuting the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the claimant had failed to take steps to prosecute the case since October 2021 and had filed an un-commissioned affidavit in response to the application, the oral submissions by the claimant's representative, citing ill health due to an accident, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court exercised its discretion to decline the respondent's application for dismissal for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need to determine the matter on its merits. The court directed the parties to set the matter down for hearing and ordered that the costs of the application be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal for want of prosecution declined.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution is declined.
  • The parties are directed to set the matter down for hearing on merit.