Kanai v Parliamentary Service Commission & another (Cause 560 of 2014) [2022] KEELRC 4126 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed an 8-year-old employment claim because the claimant ignored court conditions and let the case sit idle for over two years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Should the Claimant's cause be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution?
Key legal issues
#Whether the cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution
Application allowed; cause dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicant and 2nd Respondent.
The cause was reinstated on 21st May 2020 on condition the Claimant pay Kshs.10,000/= in costs before allocation of a hearing date. Those costs were never paid and no explanation was offered. There was no evidence the court registry was closed due to Covid-19, no affidavit from the Claimant's advocates on the alleged restructuring, and no attempts to fix the matter for hearing until after service of the dismissal application. The delay since reinstatement, and since filing in 2014, was inordinate, unreasonable and inexcusable.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant has a right to be heard but is equally under an obligation to take steps to prosecute the cause.
- Where reinstatement of a cause is conditional on payment of costs before allocation of a hearing date, compliance with that condition is a condition precedent to fixing the matter for hearing.
- A party alleging that Covid-19 caused delay must demonstrate how and to what extent it did so.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of motion dated 15th February, 2022 is allowed with costs to the Applicant
- 2.The cause is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 17 Rule 2(1) and (3) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Rule 16(1) and (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Claimant's plea to be given a last chance to prosecute the cause
The delay was inordinate, unreasonable and inexcusable, and the conditional costs of Kshs.10,000/= awarded in the ruling of 21st May 2020 were never paid despite being a condition precedent to fixing a hearing date
Costs
Cause dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicant and the 2nd 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.
It is in the Claimant who was ordered to meet the costs in the sum of Kshs.10,000/= not her Advocates. She has not settled the same since 21st May, 2020.
While the Claimant has a right to be heard she is equally under obligation to take steps to be heard by prosecuting her cause and taking steps as appropriate towards such prosecution of the cause.
The Notice of motion dated 15th February, 2022 is allowed with costs to the Applicant and hence this cause is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number, cause name and full party names are not stated in the judgment text provided; parties are identified only by role.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kanai v Parliamentary Service Commission & another (Cause 560 of 2014) [2022] KEELRC 4126 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4126/eng@2022-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.