[2020] KEELRC 1552 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1552 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing date was not adequately explained, as the hearing date had been allocated by consent and a proper hearing notice was served. The explanation of inadvertence by the advocate was unsupported by evidence, and the delay of eight months in filing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1552 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Marete Karanu; Respondent: Harvest Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 255 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Advocate Inadvertence, Prejudice to Respondent
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Advocate Inadvertence Prejudice to Respondent

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Marete Karanu

Applicant

Harvest Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the orders dismissing the suit for non-attendance should be set aside and the suit reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to reinstate the suit is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the mistake of the advocate should be visited upon the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing date was not adequately explained, as the hearing date had been allocated by consent and a proper hearing notice was served. The explanation of inadvertence by the advocate was unsupported by evidence, and the delay of eight months in filing the application to reinstate the suit was inordinate and unjustified. The court held that to set aside the dismissal and require the respondent to prepare for a fresh hearing after such delay would cause prejudice and defeat the objectives of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Consequently, there was no sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order, and the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dated 14th October, 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.