[2021] KEELRC 930 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 930 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had failed to take any action to prosecute the claim after close of pleadings and did not respond to the respondent's application for dismissal, despite being duly served. The court concluded that the claimant was no longer interested in pursuing the claim. Applying Order 17 Rule 2...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 930 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Salim Twairi; Respondent: Kwale International Sugar Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 650 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
claim dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Civil Procedure Rules, Prejudice to Respondent
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Civil Procedure Rules Prejudice to Respondent

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salim Twairi

Claimant

Kwale International Sugar Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the claimant's inaction.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was properly served and failed to respond.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had failed to take any action to prosecute the claim after close of pleadings and did not respond to the respondent's application for dismissal, despite being duly served. The court concluded that the claimant was no longer interested in pursuing the claim. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution were met, and that the respondent had demonstrated prejudice due to the delay. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution, with each party to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.