Global Hope Network International v Boru (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2429 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's ELRC dismissed an employment claim that sat idle for three years, confirming any party can seek dismissal for want of prosecution.
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 appellant was precluded from filing the motion for dismissal of the suit
- 2.Whether the delay to prosecute the suit was inordinate and inexcusable
- 3.What orders are appropriate in this appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant, having not filed a defence, was precluded from applying for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution
The appellant was not precluded; no proof of service of summons and pleadings on the appellant existed, and Rule 16(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules allows any party to apply for dismissal.
The respondent's replying affidavit never deposed to service of summons and pleadings; the allegation was made only in submissions and no affidavit of service was filed. The court found there was no service, so the appellant was not obliged to respond to unserved proceedings. Rule 16(3) permits any party to the suit to apply for dismissal, with or without a defence on file.
Whether the three-year delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and inexcusable
The delay was inordinate and inexcusable; the respondent's explanation that the matter fell off her mind demonstrated indolence and lack of due diligence.
The respondent acknowledged taking no steps for three years from filing on 12th March 2021. Her explanation was mere inadvertence, which does not amount to an excusable reason. She filed the suit and took no further steps, including service, seeking pre-trial directions or fixing for hearing, and only recalled the suit when the appellant applied for dismissal.
Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of laches for failing to enter appearance and file a defence
The trial court erred; its findings were not supported by evidence since there was no proof of service on the appellant.
The impugned ruling blamed the appellant for failing to enter appearance and file a response and for pre-trial directions not being taken. However, the appellate court found as a fact that the appellant was never served, so those findings rested on no evidence and were liable to interference on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Any party to a suit, whether or not it has filed a defence, may apply for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
- Where prolonged delay is shown and the plaintiff gives no sufficient reason, the court will presume the delay is inexcusable and may dismiss the suit.
- A finding of fact by a trial court not supported by evidence is amenable to interference on appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs
- 2.Ruling and orders of the trial court made on 20th August 2024 set aside
- 3.Substituted order dismissing the respondent's suit (Meru CM ELRC No. E001 of 2021)
- 4.Appellant awarded costs of the appeal and of the Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024 in the lower court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Meru Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
- Meru Magistrate's ELRC Cause No. E001 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2016 against a ruling of the Magistrate's Court exercising ELRC jurisdiction
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.
In the end, I allow the appeal, set aside the Ruling and orders made by the trial court on 20th August 2024, and substitute therewith an order dismissing the respondent's suit (Meru CM ELRC No. E001 of 2021). The appellant is awarded costs of the appeal and the Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024 in the lower court.
Having considered the circumstances of this case, I find that the delay in prosecuting the suit was in ordinate and no credible or suficient reason for the delay has been explained. Therefore, the delay is inexcusable.
The above explanation, in my view does not amount to an excusable reason for the delay. If anything, it demonstrates lack of due diligence and indolence on the part of the respondent and he Advocate.
The respondent was evidently indolent and slept on her right.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the respondent inconsistently by gender pronoun ('her suit' and 'he Advocate')
The judgment does not state the case number of the appeal itself, only the lower court cause numbers
The background states the cause of action arose in January 2021 while paragraph 3 records termination on 9th January 2019
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Global Hope Network International v Boru (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2429 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Meru Magistrate's ELRC Appeal arising from Cause No. E001 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2429/eng@2025-09-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.