[2025] KEELRC 608 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to demonstrate any effort to prosecute the suit between its filing in February 2023 and the issuance of the notice to show cause in January 2025. The explanation of advocate's mistake and lack of available pre-trial dates was insufficient, as the claimant did not show...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 608 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joel Muchangi Kingori; Respondent: Plastic Electronics Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E126 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; claimant granted 12 months to prosecute, with pre-trial directions scheduled.
- Judges
- AK Nzei
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Court Discretion, Pre Trial Directions
- 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
Joel Muchangi Kingori
Applicant
Plastic Electronics 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 under Rule 43 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024.
- 2 Whether the claimant has shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for inactivity.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to demonstrate any effort to prosecute the suit between its filing in February 2023 and the issuance of the notice to show cause in January 2025. The explanation of advocate's mistake and lack of available pre-trial dates was insufficient, as the claimant did not show personal diligence. However, exercising judicial discretion, the court granted the claimant a final opportunity to prosecute the suit within 12 months, failing which the suit would stand dismissed for want of prosecution. The court emphasized the shared responsibility of both litigants and advocates in ensuring timely prosecution of cases to avoid backlog.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; claimant granted 12 months to prosecute, with pre-trial directions scheduled.
Orders
- The claimant shall prosecute the suit within 12 months of 28th February 2025, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Pre-trial directions to be taken on 24th April 2025.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kingori v Plastic Electronics Limited (Cause E126 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 608 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 608 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E126 of 2023
AK Nzei, J
February 28, 2025
Between
Joel Muchangi Kingori
Claimant
and
Plastic Electronics Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The suit herein was instituted by the Claimant vide a Statement of Claim dated 16th February, 2023 and filed in this Court on 17th February, 2023. The Respondent entered appearance and filed Response to the Claimant’s claim, and a list and bundle of documents on 9th February, 2024. Thereafter, everything on the suit went silent. The Claimant is not shown to have taken any step towards setting the suit down for hearing.
2. On 2nd January, 2025, this Court’s Deputy Registrar sent out a notice to the Claimant, calling upon him to show cause why the suit herein could not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Rule 43 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 provides as follows:-“(1)In any suit in which no application has been made in accordance with Rule 31 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 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 the expeditious hearing and determination of the suit.(3)Any party to the suit may apply for dismissal as provided in sub-rule (1).(4)The Court may dismiss the suit for non-compliance with any direction given under this rule or rule 31. ”
4. When the suit came up in Court on 29th January, 2025 for the parties to show cause, I directed the Claimant to file an affidavit within 14 days of the said date showing cause why the suit could not be dismissed for want of prosecution, failing which the suit would stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. Vide an affidavit sworn on 6th February, 2025 and filed herein, the Claimant explained that after the Respondent entered appearance and filed a Statement of Response on 16th February, 2024, the Claimant was informed that the matter would first go for pre-trial [conference], and that there were no dates available in the year 2024. That failure to set the suit down for hearing was as a result of an Advocate’s mistake, which should not be visited on the Claimant. The Claimant has not, however, told the Court what effort he made between February 2023 when the suit was filed and January 2025 when the notice to show cause was issued, to follow up on the suit herein with his Advocates on record and to ensure that the same was fast-tracked and fixed for hearing. A litigant who files a suit and goes to sleep, only waking when a notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed is issued, cannot be heard to plead “Mistake of an Advocate”. Both the litigant and his Advocate would stand blamed for non-prosecution of the suit.
6. The Judiciary has, over the years, been relentlessly accused of failure to hear and to dispose of matters filed in the Courts. A time must come when litigants who have clearly been indolent, and Advocates who represent them in such Court matters, bear and/or share in the blame for non-prosecution of cases and the resultant build-up of backlog of cases in our Courts.
7. I will, nevertheless, exercise the Court’s discretion in favour of the Claimant. I make the following Orders:-a.The Claimant shall prosecute the suit herein within 12 months of today, failing which the same shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution.b.Pre-trial directions shall be taken on 24th April, 2025. c.An appropriate Notice shall be served by the Claimant on the Respondent, and an affidavit of service shall be filed.
8. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 28THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2025AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEORDERThis Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees.AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Olonde for the ClaimantNo appearance for the Respondent