[2022] KEELRC 583 (KLR)
The court found that the dismissal order was issued without the court being made aware that the present cause had been consolidated with Cause No 2397 of 2016 as the lead file. This consolidation meant that the fate of the present claim was tied to the lead cause, and its dismissal for want of prosecution was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 583 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Sisano Bildad; Respondent: Misky Investment Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2407 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Claim
- Outcome
- application allowed; dismissal order set aside; claim reinstated
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Consolidation of Cases
- 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
Sisano Bildad
Claimant
Misky Investment Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the claim should be reinstated in light of the consolidation with another cause.
- 3 Whether the absence of the claimant's counsel was excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dismissal order was issued without the court being made aware that the present cause had been consolidated with Cause No 2397 of 2016 as the lead file. This consolidation meant that the fate of the present claim was tied to the lead cause, and its dismissal for want of prosecution was therefore improper. The court was persuaded that the omission to inform the court of the consolidation constituted sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal. The claim was reinstated to await the outcome of the lead cause. The court also found that the application to set aside was made without undue delay and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice. Costs were ordered to be...
Court Disposition
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; claim reinstated
Orders
- The dismissal order issued on 17th June 2021 is set aside.
- The claim is reinstated and will await the outcome in Cause No 2397 of 2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 2407 OF 2016
SISANO BILDAD................................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MISKY INVESTMENT LIMITED.............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling responds to the Claimant’s application brought by Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2021, seeking review and/or setting aside of an order made by O.N. Makau J on 17th June 2021, dismissing the claim.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Claimant’s Counsel, Patrick Waiganjo Wachira and is based on the following grounds:
a) That the order of dismissal made on 17th June 2021 was not through the Claimant’s fault but was due to unforeseen circumstances;
b) That failure by the Claimant’s Counsel to attend court on 17th June 2021 was not deliberate as it was caused by a technical hitch in joining the virtual court;
c) That the Claimant has satisfactory reasons why the matter should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution in the first place;
d) That the application has been made without undue delay;
e) That the Respondent will not suffer any prejudice if the order sought is granted;
f) That it is in the interest of justice to grant the order sought.
3. In the affidavit in support of the application, Counsel for the Claimant states that the matter forms part of a series of matters with Cause No 2397 of 2016, being a test suit.
4. The Respondent’s response to the application is contained in a replying affidavit sworn by its Managing Director, Hindi Santur Ali, on 15th January 2022.
5. Ali depones that it is Counsel for the Claimant who fixed the matter for hearing but having served Counsel for the Respondent, did not attend court on 17th June 2021.
6. Ali further depones that the Claimant has not given any good reason for his absence. He adds that there is no evidence that the Claimant or his Counsel had logged in for the court session.
7. Ali points out that for more than six years from the date of filing, the Claimant has never bothered to set down the suit for hearing. He adds that the application for reinstatement of the suit has been filed one month after the dismissal.
8. The Respondent takes the view that the Claimant has been complacent in prosecuting his claim.
9. In prosecuting his application, the Claimant states that this claim was consolidated with Cause No 2397 of 2016: Salome Gathoni Njiru v Misky Investment Limited.
10. I have had occasion to peruse the court file in Cause No 2397 of 2016 and note that pursuant to an application by the Claimant in that Cause, dated 26th January 2017, an order for consolidation was issued. The effect of this order is that Causes No 2397 of 2016, 2398 of 2016, 2399 of 2016 and 2407 of 2016, were consolidated with Cause No 2397 of 2016 as the lead file.
11. This fact appears not to have been brought to the attention of the Court at the time the present cause was dismissed for want of prosecution. For this reason, I am persuaded to set aside the dismissal order issued on 17th June 2021 and to reinstate the claim, which will now await the outcome in50 Cause No 2397 of 2016.
12. The costs of this application will be in the cause.
13. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Waiganjo for the Claimant
Miss Jiseve for the Respondent