[2018] KEELRC 853 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 853 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant and her advocate had repeatedly failed to attend court and prosecute the case over a period of seven years, including absence on the scheduled hearing date and previous occasions. The court considered the claimant's explanation that her advocate forgot to diarise the hearing date...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 853 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nourine Yakub; Respondent: Simoun Travel Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 504 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Exercise of Judicial 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nourine Yakub

Applicant

Simoun Travel Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside the order dismissing the suit for non-attendance and reinstate the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's failure to attend court was excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice favour reinstatement of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant and her advocate had repeatedly failed to attend court and prosecute the case over a period of seven years, including absence on the scheduled hearing date and previous occasions. The court considered the claimant's explanation that her advocate forgot to diarise the hearing date but found that the overall conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence and a casual approach to prosecution. The court held that such conduct did not merit the exercise of its discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the suit is dismissed with costs to the respondent.