[2021] KEELRC 1434 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1434 (KLR)

The court held that once a suit is dismissed for want of prosecution, it constitutes a final judicial determination, rendering the court functus officio. Any subsequent change of advocate after such dismissal must strictly comply with Order 9 Rule 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring leave of court or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1434 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Kihara Gakuru; Respondent: Gath Consulting Engineers
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 133 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Reinstatement
Outcome
Objection upheld; application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Change of Advocate Post Judgment, Reinstatement of Suit, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Change of Advocate Post Judgment Reinstatement of Suit Abuse of Court Process

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Kihara Gakuru

Claimant

Gath Consulting Engineers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Reinstatement

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Change of Advocates filed after dismissal of the suit without leave of court is valid.
  2. 2 Whether the application for reinstatement of the suit is properly before the court.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can rely on Article 159 of the Constitution to cure procedural lapses after judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once a suit is dismissed for want of prosecution, it constitutes a final judicial determination, rendering the court functus officio. Any subsequent change of advocate after such dismissal must strictly comply with Order 9 Rule 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring leave of court or consent of the outgoing advocate. The claimant's reliance on Article 159 of the Constitution to cure procedural lapses was rejected, as constitutional provisions do not override clear procedural requirements. The Notice of Change of Advocate filed without leave after dismissal was invalid, and the application for reinstatement was an abuse of court process. The objections raised...

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Objections by the respondent are allowed with costs.
  • Application dated 18th January, 2021 is dismissed with costs as an abuse of court process.