Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEMC 373 (KLR)

Gekone v Nine One One Group Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E235 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 373 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (sitting at Nakuru, before a Senior Principal Magistrate)
29 July 2026
ANA.P Ndege
807 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court reinstated a worker's dismissed case, but ordered him to pay the employer Ksh. 25,000 quickly or lose the case again.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 30/01/2025 by the Claimant, Kepha Oromo, seeking reinstatement and/or revival of his suit dismissed on 11/12/2024 for non-attendance, together with leave to prosecute the suit and costs in the cause. The application was brought under sections 1A, 2A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, supported by an affidavit of Kepha Oromo. The Claimant submitted that the non-attendance resulted from the indisposition of his former advocate, an excusable mistake, that the application was filed slightly over two months after dismissal without inordinate delay, that the suit was meritorious, and that dismissal violated his constitutional rights to a fair hearing, access to justice and substantive justice. The Respondent, through a Replying Affidavit of Nelly Mulewa (Human Resource Officer) and submissions, opposed reinstatement, citing inordinate delay, alleged backdating of the application, and real prejudice through loss of key witnesses; alternatively, it sought throw-away costs of Kshs 50,000. Framing the sole issue as whether the Claimant satisfied the principles governing reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance, the court applied Rule 22(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and the Court of Appeal's principles in James Kanyiita Nderitu. Though the indisposition claim lacked evidential support, the court found the application was filed promptly, the suit was meritorious, and the Respondent's prejudice was compensable by damages. The court reinstated the suit, conditioned on payment of Ksh. 25,000 throw-away costs to the Respondent within 30 days, failing which the dismissal orders stand reinstated automatically, with costs of the application in the cause. The matter was directed to be mentioned before CM-CT 1 on 20/08/26 for reallocation and further directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant satisfied the principles for reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance

Holding

The application satisfied the threshold: the suit was filed promptly after dismissal, the suit was meritorious, and the respondent's alleged prejudice was compensable by damages; reinstatement was granted on conditional throw-away costs.

Reasoning

The court framed the single issue as whether the claimant demonstrated good cause under Rule 22(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and the James Kanyiita Nderitu principles. Although the claim that former counsel's indisposition caused non-attendance was unsupported by evidence, the court found the application was filed promptly, slightly over two months after dismissal, and that the suit had merit. The respondent's claim of lost witnesses and impaired defence could be compensated by damages. In the interests of justice, reinstatement was granted, conditioned on payment of Ksh. 25,000 throw-away costs within 30 days, failing which the dismissal automatically revives.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The legal threshold for saving a suit from dismissal for non-attendance is demonstration of good cause by the applicant.
  • To reinstate a suit dismissed for non-attendance, the applicant must show non-attendance was inadvertent, the application was made without unreasonable delay, the suit is meritorious, and greater prejudice would be suffered if denied.
  • Prejudice to a respondent can be compensated by damages and does not by itself defeat reinstatement in the interests of justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit dismissed on 11/12/2024 is reinstated
  2. 2.Throw away costs in the sum of Ksh. 25,000 to be paid to the Respondent within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the dismissal orders shall stand reinstated automatically
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
  4. 4.Matter to be mentioned before CM-CT 1 on 20/08/26 for reallocation/further directions
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 2A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gekone v Nine One One Group Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E235 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 373 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/373/eng@2026-07-29

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