[2018] KEELRC 1994 (KLR)
The Court found that the Claimant's advocate failed to provide adequate or detailed reasons for the inability to proceed, merely stating that she could not reach the Claimant without disclosing the nature or extent of attempts made. Given the history of delay, previous adjournments, and the fact that the matter had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1994 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rose N. Waigwa; Respondent: University of Nairobi; Respondent: University of Nairobi Pension Management
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2225 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Cause dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Employment Contract Disputes
- 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
Rose N. Waigwa
Applicant
University of Nairobi
Respondent
University of Nairobi Pension Management
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant had provided sufficient grounds for adjournment of the hearing.
- 2 Whether the prolonged delay and previous adjournments justified dismissal of the Cause for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Claimant's advocate failed to provide adequate or detailed reasons for the inability to proceed, merely stating that she could not reach the Claimant without disclosing the nature or extent of attempts made. Given the history of delay, previous adjournments, and the fact that the matter had been pending for over ten years, the Court determined that the interests of justice and the need for expeditious disposal of cases outweighed the Claimant's request. The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the Cause for want of prosecution, noting that the Claimant had already benefited from prior adjournments and that the Respondents were ready to proceed.
Court Disposition
Cause dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
Orders
- The Cause herein is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2225 OF 2017
(Originally Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 629 of 2008)
ROSE N. WAIGWA...........................................................................................CLAIMANT
v
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI................................................................1st RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI PENSION MANAGEMENT.............2nd RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 6 November 2017, the High Court ordered that the Cause herein be transferred to this Court for hearing and determination.
2. The Cause was consequently placed before me on 5 March 2018. In the presence of the parties, I gave directions as to the filing of witness statements, and scheduled hearing for 14 May 2018.
3. When the Cause was called out for hearing, Ms. Oginda for the Claimant sought for an adjournment on the ground that she had not been able to reach the Claimant.
4. The Respondents indicated that they were ready for the hearing, and therefore opposed the application for adjournment.
5. The Court has looked at the record. The Cause was certified as ready for hearing by the High Court on 23 July 2015.
6. When the Cause came up for hearing on 6 November 2017, the Claimant’s advocate indicated that she was not ready to proceed with the hearing because she had not served the 1st Respondent with a hearing notice.
7. Counsel also raised the question of jurisdiction, the dispute essentially revolving around an employment/contractual relationship.
8. The High Court therefore ordered that the Cause be transferred to this Court.
9. The Claimant’s advocate had more than 2 months to contact the Claimant about the hearing date.
10. Apart from stating that she had not been able to reach the Claimant, the advocate did not disclose the attempts made to reach the Claimant and how.
11. In the view of the Court, the reason advanced by the Claimant to secure an adjournment was not sufficient to warrant an adjournment considering that this dispute has been pending in the Courts for 10 years and the Claimant had already secured an adjournment previously.
12. The Court also notes that there have been previous time bound directions to facilitate the expeditious determination of the Cause which were issued after the 1st Respondent had moved the Court to dismiss the Cause for want of prosecution.
13. The Court dismisses the Cause herein with no order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 16th day of May 2018.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Ms. Oginda instructed by Njeri Kariuki, Advocate
For 1st Respondent Ms. Mochama instructed by KTK Advocates
For 2nd Respondent Mr. Ngeno instructed by Kaplan & Stratton Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey