Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause (not specified in judgment)

Wamalwa v Medina Schools Limited (Cause 682 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 552 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
586 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to revive a sacked teacher's case because his repeated no-shows showed he wasn't taking his own claim seriously.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Sarifu Wamalwa (Claimant) sued Medina Schools Ltd (Respondent) in 2018 for unfair termination of employment and breach of contract. The Cause was listed for hearing on 5 July 2023, when the Claimant's advocate sought a last adjournment because he could not reach the Claimant; the Court granted it. At the rescheduled hearing on 21 November 2023 the advocate again sought an adjournment on the same ground, and again the Court granted a last adjournment, setting the hearing for 30 January 2024. Neither the Claimant nor his advocate attended on 30 January 2024, and the Court dismissed the Cause with costs to the Respondent. The Claimant then filed a Motion dated 30 January 2024 seeking reinstatement, contending that his advocate had waited in the Court's virtual lobby but was admitted only after the Cause had been dismissed, and that the failure to attend was inadvertent rather than deliberate. The Respondent opposed through Grounds of Opposition, asserting the parties had not tendered evidence of waiting in the virtual lobby, the Claimant's persistent non-attendance, a lack of jurisdiction based on the Claimant's earnings, and archival of its files. The Court expunged the Respondent's replying affidavit filed without leave. It found the Claimant indolent - twice unready to prosecute his claim, twice granted a last adjournment, and in default of a direction to file submissions by 31 January 2025 - and held that his conduct did not favour exercising the Court's discretion in his favour. The Motion dated 30 January 2024 was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Claimant's Motion seeking reinstatement of the Cause dismissed for non-attendance should be allowed
  2. 2.Whether the Claimant's failure to attend the hearing on 30 January 2024 was inadvertent and whether his conduct warranted exercise of the Court's discretion in his favour

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant's conduct disentitled him from reinstatement of the dismissed Cause

Holding

The Motion was dismissed; the Claimant's repeated non-attendance and non-compliance with directions amounted to indolence which did not favour exercise of the Court's discretion

Reasoning

The record showed the Claimant twice failed to attend hearings, each time prompting his advocate to seek adjournments on the ground of being unable to reach him. The Court granted a last adjournment both times. Despite directions to file submissions by an agreed timeline of 31 January 2025, the Claimant failed to comply. Because reinstatement is discretionary, this pattern of indolence justified refusal of the discretion.

p. 2
02

Whether the Respondent's replying affidavit filed without leave could be relied upon

Holding

The replying affidavit filed on 6 February 2025 without leave was expunged from the record

Reasoning

The Respondent filed a replying affidavit on 6 February 2025 after directions given on 20 January 2025, without seeking leave of the Court. The Court exercised its discretion to strike the affidavit off the record, meaning the Motion fell to be determined on the Motion, supporting affidavit and submissions on record.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance seeks an exercise of judicial discretion, which will be refused where the party's indolent conduct does not favour the exercise of discretion in their favour

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The replying affidavit filed on 6 February 2025 without leave is expunged from the record
  2. 2.The Motion dated 30 January 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

The bench

#

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

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination and breach of contract claims; inherent/review discretion to reinstate a suit dismissed for non-attendance

Relief refused

#

Reinstatement of the suit dismissed for non-attendance

The Claimant was indolent - twice unready to prosecute his claim, twice granted a last adjournment, and failed to file submissions by the agreed timeline; his conduct did not favour exercise of the Court's discretion

p. 2

Costs

Costs of the Motion 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 record indicates an indolent Claimant. Twice he was not ready to prosecute his claim. Twice the Court granted him a last adjournment.
p. 2Indolence of a party seeking reinstatement
The Claimant was seeking an exercise of the Court’s discretion. His conduct does not favour exercising the discretion in his favour.
p. 2Discretionary nature of reinstatement
Flowing from the above, the Court dismisses the Motion dated 30 January 2024 with costs to the Respondent.
p. 2Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the Respondent's jurisdictional objection (Claimant earning below Kshs 80,000/monthly) but does not record any finding on it

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wamalwa v Medina Schools Limited (Cause 682 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 552 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause (not specified in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/552/eng@2025-02-27

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