[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Salim Twairi
Claimant
Kwale International Sugar Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the claimant's inaction.
- 2 Whether the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 650 OF 2017
SALIM TWAIRI.....................................................CLAIMANT
VS
KWALE INTERNATIONAL
SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED.....................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling relates to the Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2021, seeking dismissal of the Claimant’s claim for want of prosecution.
2. The Motion is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent’s Counsel, Moses Njuru and is based on the following grounds:
a) The Claimant has refused, neglected and/or otherwise failed to take any steps to prosecute his claim for a period of twelve months;
b) The claim is therefore an abuse of the court process;
c) The Respondent continues to suffer unnecessary anxiety and serious prejudice due to the intentional, contumelious, inordinate and inexcusable delay in the prosecution of the claim;
d) The Respondent is a limited liability company that engages employees, on term contract at different times, and the witnesses are such persons. The prolonged delay has occasioned the Respondent prejudice due to weak evidence resulting from disappearance of human memory as well as witnesses having left employment;
e) The Claimant’s act of filing a case and subsequently failing, refusing and/or declining to prosecute the same is painting the Judiciary in bad light as it is occasioning unnecessary backlog.
3. In his affidavit in support of the Motion, the Respondent’s Counsel, Moses Njuru states that since close of pleadings, the Claimant has refused and/or failed to take any step to prosecute the claim.
4. The Claimant did not respond to the Respondent’s Motion, in spite of due service.
5. Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:
(1) In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
(2) If cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court it may make such orders as it thinks fit to obtain expeditious hearing of the suit.
(3) Any party to the suit may apply for its dismissal as provided in sub-rule 1.
6. The Claimant filed his claim on 4th August 2017 and the Respondent filed its Reply on 30th November 2017. Thereafter, the Claimant took no action towards prosecuting his claim. Moreover, the Claimant did not bother to respond to the Respondent’s Motion, in spite of due service.
7. The only conclusion to draw therefore, is that the Claimant is no longer interested in pursuing the claim. I therefore proceed to dismiss it for want of prosecution.
8. Each party will bear their own costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY SEPTEMBER 2021
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of restrictions in physical court operations occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic, this ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of court fees.
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
No appearance for the Claimant
Mr. Kulecho for the Respondent