[2017] KEELRC 1507 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1507 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for over two years, and that the explanation provided—difficulty in contacting a third party—was insufficient. The court held that the responsibility to progress the case lay with the claimant, and that neither the respondent nor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1507 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Philip Kiplimo Kosgey; Respondent: G4S Security Services (Kenya) Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 630 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
Outcome
cause dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management, Indolence of Claimant
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Case Management Indolence of Claimant

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Kiplimo Kosgey

Claimant

G4S Security Services (Kenya) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal

  1. 1 Whether the cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the claimant.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's explanation for the delay is sufficient to avoid dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the cause for over two years, and that the explanation provided—difficulty in contacting a third party—was insufficient. The court held that the responsibility to progress the case lay with the claimant, and that neither the respondent nor the claimant's advocate should suffer due to the claimant's indolence. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

cause dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The cause is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • There is no order as to costs.