[2025] KEELRC 676 (KLR)
The court held that it was not open to it to consider a second application for reinstatement of the cause after a previous similar application had already been dismissed by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The dismissal of the earlier application was a final determination on the issue, and the court's hands were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 676 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Nyandoro Mauti; Respondent: Hyperthink System Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E635 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit, Non Attendance, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Robert Nyandoro Mauti
Applicant
Hyperthink System Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can entertain a second application for reinstatement after a previous similar application was dismissed.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for reinstatement of the dismissed cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was not open to it to consider a second application for reinstatement of the cause after a previous similar application had already been dismissed by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The dismissal of the earlier application was a final determination on the issue, and the court's hands were tied by the principle that prevents re-litigation of the same matter before the same level of court. Although the court acknowledged that the effect of the dismissal may be harsh and could deny the applicant access to justice at this level, it was bound by procedural rules and the doctrine of res judicata. Therefore, the application for reinstatement was declined.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Motion dated 6 June 2024 is declined with no order on costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Mauti v Hyperthink System Limited (Cause E635 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 676 (KLR) (6 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 676 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E635 of 2021
S Radido, J
March 6, 2025
Between
Robert Nyandoro Mauti
Claimant
and
Hyperthink System Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. For determination is a Motion dated 6 June 2024 by the Claimant seeking orders:i.That the Honourable Court do grant this application for reinstatement of the above matter as the matter was dismissed due to non-attendance by the applicant’s counsel.ii.That another hearing date be granted on a priority basis.iii.That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The grounds in support of the Motion were that when the Cause was called out for hearing on 6 May 2023, the Claimant’s call to the virtual Court dropped due internet challenges and that it was in the interest of justice to reinstate the Cause.
3. When the Motion was placed before the Court on 13 November 2024, it directed the Claimant to serve the Respondent.
4. An affidavit of Service filed in Court on 15 January 2025 attested to service of the Motion upon the Respondent’s advocate through email mwambagitongaadvocates@gmail.com.
5. Despite the service, the Respondent did not respond to the Motion or attend the Court.
6. The Court has considered the record, Motion and affidavit in support.
7. The record indicates that the Cause was dismissed on 6 May 2024 because of the non-attendance of the Claimant’s advocate who was present when the hearing date was fixed.
8. The record also show that the Claimant filed a Motion dated 6 May 2024 seeking an order reinstating the Cause.
9. When the Motion was placed before the Court ex-parte (differently constituted), the Motion was dismissed with no order on costs on 31 May 2024.
10. The Claimant has now brought a Motion seeking similar orders.
11. It is the view of this Court that it is not open to it to consider a similar application to one that had been dismissed, and not struck out, by a Court of concurrent jurisdiction.
12. The Court must admit with regret that the reason given for dismissing the initial Motion may have the consequence of chasing away the Claimant from the temple of justice at this level of the judicial hierarchy, but its hands are tied.
Orders 13. The Motion dated 6 June 2024 is declined with no order on costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. Radido Stephen, MCIArbJudgeAppearancesFor Claimant Mutonyi Mulama & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent MGW Advocates LLPCourt Assistant Wangu