Others v Kirinyaga Construction (k) Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal reinstated four employment claims dismissed for non-attendance, confirming courts must interpret 'sufficient cause' liberally to serve justice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Judge erred in refusing to reinstate the claims dismissed for non-attendance
Yes. The explanation offered by the appellants - that they were in the court premises, that only the lead-file claimant's name was called and he was outside the congested courtroom - was reasonable, and the Judge should have exercised his discretion in their favour
The Court found as fact that the claims had been consolidated with Paul Mwai Mwangi's claim as the lead file, and that Wilson Mwangi Njogu, an agreed lay representative, was present in court expecting his name to be called. The name called was that of the lead claimant who was outside the courtroom due to limited space. The Court held the Judge erred in faulting the appellants or their lawyer and should have found the explanation reasonable and exercised discretion judiciously.
Counsel's failure to alert the Judge upon late arrival
Counsel should have alerted the Judge of his late arrival and that the appellants were ready to proceed, but this lapse alone did not justify refusal of reinstatement
While agreeing that the lawyer should have alerted the Judge upon arrival at 9.30 a.m., the Court treated this as a matter of handling the matter less elegantly, not as negligence amounting to want of bona fides sufficient to defeat reinstatement.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong, based on misdirection, reliance on wrong matters, or failure to consider relevant matters leading to a wrong conclusion
- The words 'sufficient cause' for reinstatement of a dismissed suit should receive a liberal construction in order to advance substantial justice where there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Ruling of Makau, J. delivered on 3rd July 2019 set aside
- 3.Application dated 26th March 2019 allowed
- 4.Claims at the ELRC reinstated and to be placed for hearing before a Judge apart from Makau, J.
- 5.Each party to meet their own costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Cause 95 of 2017 (lead file, consolidated causes 95, 96, 121 and 220 of 2017)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Others v Kirinyaga Construction (k) Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Court of Appeal Appeal arising from ELRC Cause 95 of 2017 (lead file). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1841/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.