[2017] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant had not demonstrated diligence in prosecuting the claim, as evidenced by repeated failures to attend court and non-payment of adjournment fees, the respondent's lack of opposition to the application for reinstatement weighed in favour of granting the application. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Handa; Respondent: Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 20 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Claim
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Dismissal order set aside. Claim reinstated. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Dismissed Claim, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Non Attendance of Parties, Adjournment Fees
- 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
Patrick Handa
Applicant
Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review and set aside the dismissal order made on 24 July 2017 for non-attendance.
- 2 Whether the applicant's claim should be reinstated and set down for hearing.
- 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient diligence to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant had not demonstrated diligence in prosecuting the claim, as evidenced by repeated failures to attend court and non-payment of adjournment fees, the respondent's lack of opposition to the application for reinstatement weighed in favour of granting the application. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the claim, emphasizing that the overriding objective is to facilitate substantive justice, especially where the respondent does not object and there is no evidence of intentional default by the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Dismissal order set aside. Claim reinstated. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The orders made by the Court on 24 July 2017 dismissing the applicant's claim for non-attendance are set aside.
- The applicant's claim is reinstated and to be set down for hearing at the earliest opportune time.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT ELDORET
CAUSE NO. 20 OF 2017
(Originally Nakuru Cause No. 172 of 2014)
PATRIC HANDA CLAIMANT
v
RAI PLYWOODS (K) LTD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Patrick Handa (applicant) instituted proceedings against Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd (Respondent) on 26 May 2014 alleging breach of contract/unfair termination of employment.
2. The Respondent filed a Response on 18 December 2014.
3. On 16 July 2014, the Court scheduled the hearing for 17 March 2015 in the presence of Ms. Wanjiru holding brief for Mr. Kipkoech.
4. When the Cause was called out for hearing on 17 March 2015, the Claimant sought an adjournment on the basis that counsel on record was attending the High Court in Eldoret.
5. The Court granted the adjournment and directed that the Claimant pay court adjournment fees.
6. On 4 February 2016, the Claimant secured a mention date in the registry for a mention on 19 July 2016.
7. However, the Claimant did not attend Court and the Court directed that the Cause be stood over generally. The Claimant was directed to pay court adjournment fees.
8. Again, on 28 July 2016, the Claimant applied to the Registry for a mention date. The Registry scheduled mention for 27 October 2016.
9. None of the parties attended Court on 27 October 2016 and the Court stood over the Cause with an order that the Claimant pays court adjournment fees for the day and the fees ordered previously (the Claimant had not paid the adjournment fees directed on 19 July 2016).
10. On 21 November 2016, the Claimant yet again moved the Registry to schedule the Cause for mention and the Registry scheduled mention for 1 March 2017.
11. On 1 March 2017 the Court directed that Agreed Issues be filed before 31 March 2017 and mention to confirm was fixed for 10 April 2017, during which the Issues as proposed by the Claimant were adopted.
12. At the same appearance, the Court ordered that the Cause be transferred to Eldoret for hearing on 26 June 2017. The Claimant was directed to serve a hearing notice upon the Respondent.
13. The Court did not sit on 26 June 2016 as it was declared a public holiday and the Deputy Registrar caused a notice to be posted in the notice board that the Cause would be heard on 24 July 2017.
14. When the Cause was called out on 24 July 2017, none of the parties were represented and the Court dismissed the Cause.
15. The Claimant has now moved Court through a motion dated 3 August 2017 seeking
1. THAT this Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to review and/or set aside the orders made by this Court on 24/7/2017 dismissing the Applicant’s/Claimant’s claim for non-attendance.
2. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to reinstate the Applicant’s/Claimant’s claim and set the same down for hearing at the earliest opportune time.
3. THAT cost of this application be in the cause.
16. The Respondent indicated that it would not oppose the application.
17. The applicant has asserted that he did not see the public notice by the Deputy Registrar rescheduling the Causes which were caught up by the public holiday to 24 July 2017 because his advocate’s offices are located in Nakuru and not Eldoret.
18. The orders sought by the applicant require the Court to exercise its discretion and the legal principles applicable to such exercise of discretion have been set out in many decisions which the Court need not recite.
19. In the view of the Court, the applicant has not exhibited diligence in having the Cause determined as shown by the failure to attend Court during various appearances.
20. However, and because the Respondent does not oppose the application, the Court will allow the application with no order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Eldoret on this 29th day of September 2017.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For applicant Mr. Nanda instructed by Gordon Ogola, Kipkoech & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mr. Aseso instructed by Gicheru & Co. Advocates
Court Assistants Nixon/Etyang