[2022] KEELRC 1095 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 1095 (KLR)

The court found that although there were mitigating factors, such as the Claimant having already testified and delays caused by the Respondent and court administrative errors, the Claimant failed to comply with the specific order to file and serve an affidavit within 14 days showing cause why the suit should not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 1095 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Safari Kombe; Respondent: Milly Glass Works Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 249 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
Judges
AK Nzei
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Court Procedure, Affidavit Filing, Case Management
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Court Procedure Affidavit Filing 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Safari Kombe

Applicant

Milly Glass Works Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance with court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing of the Replying Affidavit by the Claimant's Advocate constitutes sufficient cause to prevent dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there were mitigating factors, such as the Claimant having already testified and delays caused by the Respondent and court administrative errors, the Claimant failed to comply with the specific order to file and serve an affidavit within 14 days showing cause why the suit should not be dismissed. No extension was sought or obtained for this deadline. As a result, by operation of the court's order dated 29th November 2021, the suit stood dismissed for want of prosecution as of 14th December 2021. The subsequent Replying Affidavit was filed after the suit had already been dismissed and was therefore struck out. The court ordered the file closed.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution as of 14th December 2021.
  • The Replying Affidavit filed on 19th January 2022 is struck out.