Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Kumanda v Metro Consultants & Guardian Limited (Cause 985 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 June 2024
JRJames Rika
559 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant's claim, filed on 18th June 2018, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16th November 2023 on the Respondent's application dated 20th June 2023. The claimant had failed to attend the hearing fixed for 17th December 2018, and took no steps to prosecute the claim thereafter. He was served with the dismissal application but again did not attend on 16th November 2023, and the application was allowed in his absence. He then filed an application dated 23rd November 2023 seeking to set aside the dismissal orders, arguing that the Court should extend substantive justice to him by reinstating the claim, explaining that he instructed advocates on the eve of the hearing and was unaware of the hearing date. The Respondent opposed, relying on grounds of opposition dated 5th February 2024, contending that the claimant never explained five years of inaction. Parties filed written submissions. The Court found that the claimant had not satisfactorily explained his failure to prosecute the claim for five years or his absence when the dismissal application was heard, noting the record was replete with instances of his non-attendance. The Respondent was held entitled to closure six years after being sued. The application dated 23rd November 2023 was declined, with costs to the Respondent, and the file closed as ordered on 16th November 2023. Judgment delivered on 14th June 2024 by James Rika, Judge, at Nairobi.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Claimant's application dated 23rd November 2023 seeking setting aside of the orders of dismissal of 16th November 2023 should be allowed
  2. 2.Whether the Claimant satisfactorily explained his failure to prosecute the Claim for 5 years and his non-attendance when the dismissal application was heard

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal for want of prosecution should be set aside in the interest of substantive justice

Holding

The application was declined because the Claimant failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for 5 years of inaction and for absenting himself from the hearing of the dismissal application

Reasoning

The court reviewed the litigation history: the claim was filed in June 2018, a hearing date fixed for December 2018, and the claimant failed to attend. No steps were taken thereafter until the respondent's 2023 dismissal application, which the claimant also failed to attend despite being served. He instructed advocates only on the eve of the hearing. The court found no justification for reinstatement and closed the file.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking reinstatement of a claim dismissed for want of prosecution must satisfactorily explain the inaction and non-attendance
  • A defendant is entitled to closure after prolonged inaction by a claimant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by the Claimant dated 23rd November 2023 is declined
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent
  3. 3.The file is closed as ordered on 16th November 2023

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to review/set aside its own orders (application dated 23rd November 2023 seeking setting aside of dismissal orders)

Relief refused

#

Reinstatement of the Claim and setting aside of the orders of dismissal dated 16th November 2023

The Claimant did not satisfactorily explain his inaction for 5 years and his non-attendance at the hearing of the dismissal application

p. 2

Costs

Costs 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.

The Claimant has not explained satisfactorily why he did not prosecute his Claim for 5 years, and why he did not attend Court when the Respondent moved the Court to dismiss the Claim for want of prosecution.
p. 2unexplained inaction
The Respondent is entitled to closure, 6 years after it was hauled before the Court by the Claimant. There is no reason given by the Claimant, to justify re-instatement of the Claim.
p. 2entitlement to closure
The application filed by the Claimant dated 23rd November 2023 is declined.
p. 2final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Case number and neutral citation not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kumanda v Metro Consultants & Guardian Limited (Cause 985 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1455/eng@2024-06-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.