[2019] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant's explanation for non-attendance was unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence. The affidavit did not disclose which Advocate was ill, the nature of the illness, or provide any medical records. No affidavit was filed by the Advocate alleged to be ill, nor did the Claimant himself...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Munyoki Kitheka; Respondent: Brinks Security Services Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 604 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- application for reinstatement rejected
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Claim, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Court Procedure, Affidavit Evidence
- 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
Munyoki Kitheka
Claimant
Brinks Security Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant has provided sufficient grounds to warrant reinstatement of the dismissed claim.
- 2 Whether the absence of the Claimant and his Advocate on the hearing date was adequately explained.
- 3 Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 were met.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant's explanation for non-attendance was unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence. The affidavit did not disclose which Advocate was ill, the nature of the illness, or provide any medical records. No affidavit was filed by the Advocate alleged to be ill, nor did the Claimant himself explain his absence. The grounds in the application were inconsistent with the supporting affidavit. In the absence of credible evidence and in line with Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, the court held that there was no sufficient basis to reinstate the claim. The application for reinstatement was therefore rejected.
Court Disposition
application for reinstatement rejected
Orders
- Claimant’s application filed on 18th January 2019, seeking to have the claim reinstated, is rejected.
- No order on the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 604 OF 2017
BETWEEN
MUNYOKI KITHEKA...............................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
BRINKS SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED......................RESPONDENT
Rika J
Court Assistant: Benjamin Kombe
__________________________
Otieno Osewe & Company Advocates for the Claimant
M. M. Kimuli & Company Advocates for the Respondent
_____________________________________________
RULING
1. The Claim herein was dismissed for non-attendance by the Parties and their respective Advocates, when the Claim was scheduled for hearing on 10th December 2018.
2. The hearing date was taken in Open Court, by the Advocates for the respective Parties, on 7th March 2018.
3. The Claimant filed an Application dated 18th January 2019, seeking to have the Claim reinstated.
4. The Application is supported by an Affidavit sworn by Ms. Laura Mbithe Mwadime, Advocate for the Claimant, on 18th January 2019.
5. She depones that the Advocate having conduct of the Claimant’s case, fell gravely ill on the hearing date. The said Advocate was unable to attend Court, and to inform the other Advocates in the Law Firm about this inability to attend Court.
6. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition on 14th February 2019. Its position is that there is no evidence showing Claimant’s Advocate fell sick on the hearing date. The Claimant himself did not attend Court.
7. Parties agreed on 14th February 2019, to have the Application considered and determined on the basis of their Affidavit, Grounds of Opposition and Submissions. They confirmed filing of Submissions on 15th March 2019.
The Court Finds:-
8. The position taken by the Claimant in arguing his Application under consideration, is very unpersuasive.
9. Hearing of the Claim was fixed for 10th December 2018. The date was taken in Open Court by Ms. Osore Advocate for the Claimant, and Mr. Mkomba Advocate, holding brief for Ms. Mutua Advocate for the Respondent.
10. On 10th December 2018, none of the Parties, or their Advocates attended Court.
11. The Court dismissed the Claim for non-attendance. Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, mandates the Court, where a Party fails to attend Court on the day fixed for hearing, to dismiss the Claim. If the Court has good reasons not to do so, the reasons must be recorded. The first judicial instinct, under the Rule, should be dismissal of the Claim in the absence of notified Parties.
12. The Claimant explains in the Supporting Affidavit that Claimant’s Advocate fell gravely ill on the hearing date, and could not attend Court.
13. This Affidavit is sworn by Ms. Laura Mbithe Mwadime, an Advocate working for the Law Firm of Otieno Asewe & Company.
14. She does not disclose which Advocate fell gravely ill.
15. The nature of the grave illness is not disclosed.
16. There are no medical records showing any Advocate at Otieno Asewe & Company Advocates, fell ill on the hearing date.
17. There is no Affidavit filed by the Advocate alleged to have fallen ill on the hearing date.
18. The Claimant himself has not sworn any Affidavit to indicate where he was, on the hearing date.
19. The Grounds on the face of the Notice of Motion do not entirely agree with the Affidavit of Ms. Mwadime.
20. Ground (b) alleges the Claimant’s Advocate was unable to attend Court in time. This suggests late attendance, rather than non-attendance.
IT IS ORDERED:-
a) Claimant’s Application filed on 18th January 2019, seeking to have the Claim reinstated is rejected.
b) No order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 28th day of March 2019.
James Rika
Judge