Kagendo v Generic Brands Limited & another (Cause E955 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2785 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court spared an employee's lawsuit but personally fined her lawyer for repeatedly skipping pretrial conferences.
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 suit should be dismissed for non-attendance during pretrial conference
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be dismissed for the Claimant's non-attendance at pretrial conferences
Although the Claimant's repeated non-attendance warranted dismissal, the court exercised discretion in favour of the Claimant and instead condemned her counsel in compensatory costs
Rule 40(5) governs dismissal for failure to attend pretrial conferences, while Rule 43 governs dismissal for want of prosecution after one year. The motion fell under Rule 40(5). The record confirmed non-attendance on five dates with no plausible explanation. The court nonetheless spared the suit, attributing possible fault to counsel, and ordered the counsel to pay Kshs. 4,000 for four missed dates with liberty to execute personally on default.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 40(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024 empowers the court to fix a matter for hearing or dismiss it where a party fails to attend a pre-trial conference
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's counsel to pay the Respondent Kshs. 4,000 for the 4 days he failed to attend the pre-trial conferences
- 2.The said costs to be paid within 14 days, failing which the Respondent may execute against the counsel personally
- 3.The suit fixed for pretrial conference on 28/10/2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024, Rules 40(5) and 43
Relief refused
#Dismissal of the suit for non-appearance of the Claimant and want of prosecution
The court found the failure to attend pretrial conferences was a clear case for dismissal but declined to dismiss in the interest of justice, instead condemning the Claimant's counsel in costs
Costs
Claimant's counsel condemned to pay the Respondent Kshs. 4,000 within 14 days, in default of which the Respondent may execute against the counsel personally
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.
There is no doubt from the record that the Claimant failed to attend pretrial conference on 13th March 2025, 7th May 2025, 24th June 2025, 15th July 2025 and 31st July 2025. No plausible explanation was tendered for the said failure to attend court for pretrial conference.
However, in the interest of justice for the Claimant who might have been messed by her counsel, I will not dismiss the suit but rather condemn the Claimant's counsel to pay the Respondent Kshs. 4000 for the 4 days he failed to attended the said pre-trial conferences.
The said costs shall be paid within 14 days and in default the Respondent will be at liberty to execute against the counsel personally. The suit is fixed for pretrial conference on 28/10/2025.
Issues in the judgment
#The court states costs are for 'the 4 days' counsel failed to attend, yet the judgment lists five missed pretrial conference dates
Appearance section records no appearance for the Claimant although the judgment records that Mr. Macharia Advocate argued for the Claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kagendo v Generic Brands Limited & another (Cause E955 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2785 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2785/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.