[2017] KEELRC 1505 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1505 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the claimant had served summons upon the respondent, a fundamental procedural requirement. Additionally, the claimant failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for approximately four years and did not comply with the court's direction to file an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1505 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya National Private Security Workers Union; Respondent: Excellent Security Workers Union
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2305 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
cause dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Service of Summons, Case Management
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Service of Summons Case Management

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union

Claimant

Excellent Security Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the claimant served summons upon the respondent as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant took reasonable steps to prosecute the cause within a reasonable time.
  3. 3 Whether the cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the claimant had served summons upon the respondent, a fundamental procedural requirement. Additionally, the claimant failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for approximately four years and did not comply with the court's direction to file an affidavit of service. The claimant's advocate was also absent on the scheduled hearing date. These failures amounted to inexcusable delay and lack of diligence, justifying dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the matter, noting the absence of any action by the claimant and the lack of service upon the respondent.

Court Disposition

cause dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

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