[2022] KEELRC 12707 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 12707 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's advocate failed to provide sufficient justification for non-attendance on the hearing date, as the request to change the date was not approved and there was no evidence that the advocate's attendance at another court took priority. The claimant himself did not file any affidavit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 12707 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joshua Musyoka Muli; Respondent: Twiga Costruction Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 633 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Reinstatement Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit, Non Attendance, Court Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit Non Attendance Court Discretion 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Musyoka Muli

Applicant

Twiga Costruction Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal order issued on December 16, 2019 for non-attendance should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated for hearing on the merits.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application for reinstatement is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's advocate failed to provide sufficient justification for non-attendance on the hearing date, as the request to change the date was not approved and there was no evidence that the advocate's attendance at another court took priority. The claimant himself did not file any affidavit to show interest in the matter since 2015. Furthermore, the application to set aside the dismissal was filed over a year after the order, and the delay was not adequately explained by reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, with each party to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dated December 22, 2020 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear own costs.