Joseph Angwenyi Ongoro v Regal Pharmaceuticals Limited [2021] KEELRC 1415 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to reinstate a suit dismissed for inaction, ruling that once a decision is made, the court cannot reopen it except in exceptional cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court can set aside the orders of 26th February, 2019 dismissing the claimant's suit for want of prosecution
- 2.Whether good cause was shown to justify reinstating the claimant's suit
- 3.Whether the application dated 8th March, 2021 is an abuse of court process
Key legal issues
#Whether good cause was shown to set aside the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution
No good cause was shown; the claimant's advocate gave contradictory and misleading explanations for absence, the claimant himself was absent, and the delay of 25 months and 10 days in moving the court was unexplained.
The court had dismissed the suit on 26th February, 2019 after a Notice to Show Cause. The claimant's advocate then claimed to have been at Mavoko High Court, contradicting the earlier representation in court that he was at Marsabit High Court; no such High Court exists at Mavoko. No affidavit from the advocate who attended was filed, and the claimant's own silence and inaction over two years demonstrated indolence.
Whether the court could reopen the matter after delivering its dismissal decision
The court stood functus officio; only exceptional circumstances such as fraud, mistake or fundamental irregularity would permit reopening, none of which existed.
The court reiterated the functus officio doctrine, holding that once a decision is delivered the court ceases to be seized of the matter. The application disclosed none of the recognized exceptions and was therefore framed as an abuse of court process warranting dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court becomes functus officio after delivering its decision and cannot reopen the matter except in exceptional cases such as fraud, mistake or fundamental irregularity
- A suit in which no action has been taken for one year may be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 if no reasonable cause is shown
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th March, 2021 by the claimant is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Setting aside the orders of 26th February, 2019 dismissing the claimant's suit
No good cause was shown; the advocate's explanation contradicted earlier representations in court and there was unexplained delay of over 25 months
Reinstatement of the claimant's suit
The court is functus officio after delivering its decision and no exceptional circumstance (fraud, mistake, fundamental irregularity) was established
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Once a court has delivered its decision on a matter, it ceases to be seized of the same and it stands functus officio and it cannot re-open it for any purpose whatsoever except in appropriate and exceptional cases such as when the order was obtained by fraud or deceit; was given under a mistake or there is a fundamental irregularity.
The obvious delay is not addressed. The absence of the claimant as the right-holder of the suit or his affidavit with regard to any interest in the matter is apparently clear.
Accordingly, application dated 8th March, 2021 by the claimant is in abuse of court process and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant's advocate's whereabouts on 26th February, 2019 are inconsistently stated within the judgment narrative (Marsabit High Court per Mr Otieno in court; Mavoko High Court per the supporting affidavit)
The suit number and full party names are not stated in the judgment excerpt
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Angwenyi Ongoro v Regal Pharmaceuticals Limited [2021] KEELRC 1415 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1415/eng@2021-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.