[2018] KEELRC 2192 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2192 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review was filed after an inordinate delay of six years and by counsel not properly on record. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or for the failure to prosecute the case. The court held that there was no merit in the application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2192 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Ndegeyo Mugaya; Respondent: K-Rep Bank Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 202 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Attendance, Review of Court Orders, Advocate on Record, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Dismissal for Non Attendance Review of Court Orders Advocate on Record Delay in Prosecution

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

Martin Ndegeyo Mugaya

Applicant

K-Rep Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the application for review of the dismissal order is merited given the delay of six years.
  2. 2 Whether the firm of Isoe Nyakwara Associates and Company Advocates is properly on record for the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to prosecute the case was excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review was filed after an inordinate delay of six years and by counsel not properly on record. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or for the failure to prosecute the case. The court held that there was no merit in the application for review and dismissed it accordingly.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review dated 22nd February 2017 is dismissed.