[2018] KEELRC 2440 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2440 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the non-attendance of his advocate at the hearing of the transfer application. The advocate scheduled the hearing date without consulting the respondent's advocate and was aware of conflicting obligations in other courts. No affidavit was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2440 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Wycliff Mwangaza Kihungwa; Respondent: Grain Bulk Handlers Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Revive Dismissed Transfer Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Res Judicata, Revival of Application
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Transfer of Suit Jurisdiction of Courts Res Judicata Revival of Application

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wycliff Mwangaza Kihungwa

Applicant

Grain Bulk Handlers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Revive Dismissed Transfer Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to justify revival of the dismissed application for transfer of suit.
  2. 2 Whether the application is res judicata in light of a similar application previously rejected by the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's advocate's explanation for non-attendance constitutes sufficient reason for setting aside the dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the non-attendance of his advocate at the hearing of the transfer application. The advocate scheduled the hearing date without consulting the respondent's advocate and was aware of conflicting obligations in other courts. No affidavit was provided by the colleague allegedly entrusted with holding brief, nor was the colleague named. Furthermore, the court held that the application was res judicata, as a similar application for transfer had previously been made and rejected by the High Court. Reviving the application would therefore serve no useful purpose. The application to revive the dismissed transfer...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 27th July 2016 is rejected.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.