[2023] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant had failed to prosecute the suit since its filing in April 2018, and no explanation for the delay was provided in response to the application for dismissal. The court concluded that the claimant was not interested in prosecuting the suit, and allowing it to remain on the court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maurice Ouma Otieno; Respondent: SGA Security (Msa) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 229 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- AK Nzei
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Backlog Management, Court Procedure, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Maurice Ouma Otieno
Applicant
SGA Security (Msa) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the claimant's inaction.
- 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant had failed to prosecute the suit since its filing in April 2018, and no explanation for the delay was provided in response to the application for dismissal. The court concluded that the claimant was not interested in prosecuting the suit, and allowing it to remain on the court's docket would contribute to case backlog. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The claimant's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Each party will bear its own costs of both the suit and the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Otieno v SGA Security (Msa) Ltd (Cause 229 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2388 (KLR) (29 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Cause 229 of 2018
AK Nzei, J
September 29, 2023
Between
Maurice Ouma Otieno
Claimant
and
SGA Security (Msa)Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before me is the Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 19/7/2021 and filed in Court on 26/7/2021. The following orders are sought:-a.that the Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the suit herein for want of prosecution.b.that costs of the application be provided for, and be borne by the Claimant.
2. The application is expressed to be brought under Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, and Orders 17 rule 2(1) & (3) and 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; and is premised on a supporting affidavit of Fenny Atieno Odhiambo, the Respondent’s Human Resource Officer, sworn 26/7/2021. It is deponed in the said affidavit that although the Respondent defended the suit upon being served with Summons on the suit herein, and that although the suit was subsequently fixed for hearing severally, the same was adjourned as the Claimant did not attend Court. That the Respondent has, without justification, been put to needless expenses.
3. The application is shown to have been served on the Claimant by substituted service pursuant to the Court’s order in that regard. There is on record an affidavit of service in that regard, shown to have been filed on 6/6/2023. The Claimant did not file any response to the application, which stands unopposed.
4. The Court’s record show that the Claimant’s suit was filed on 13/4/2018, and that the same has never proceeded for hearing. In the absence of any response to the present application explaining the delay by the Claimant in prosecuting the suit, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the Claimant is not interested in prosecuting his suit. The suit cannot be allowed to be part of daily statistics of case backlog in this Court.
5. In sum, I find merit in the Respondent’s application, and the same is allowed. The Claimant’s suit herein is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
6. Each party will bear its own costs of both the suit and the application.
7. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 29TH SEPTEMBER 2023AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEORDERThis Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees.AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGE