AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause dismissed on 11 March 2015; Motion dated 12 March 2015· [2015] KEELRC 1122 (KLR)
John Nganga Mangae v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Cause 127 of 2014) [2015] KEELRC 1122 (KLR)
Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
15 May 2015
372 words in judgment
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court reinstated a case dismissed because both lawyers missed the hearing, saying disputes should be decided on their merits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The Cause had been fixed for hearing on 11 March 2015. When it was called, neither the Claimant's nor the Respondent's counsel was in Court, and the Court dismissed the Cause for non-attendance. The Claimant filed a motion dated 12 March 2015 seeking review/setting aside of the dismissal, contending that he had attended Court in person but, being unfamiliar with Court procedures, did not inform the Court that his Advocate was ready to proceed; it was also contended that his Advocate, Mr. Kairo, had the brief but was unwell, with medical reports annexed. Counsel indicated readiness to pay thrown away costs. The Respondent opposed the application by a replying affidavit sworn on 18 March 2015, faulting the Claimant's counsel for not alerting its counsel of his illness and contending the orders were unmerited. The Court found that even the Respondent's counsel who opposed the application had been absent on the hearing date, and held that every advocate, as an officer of the Court, must attend Court for mentions or hearings or make suitable arrangements to be represented. The Court reviewed the dismissal order and reinstated the Cause for hearing and determination on the merits, granting order 3 of the Motion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the motion. Delivered at Nakuru on 15 May 2015 by Radido Stephen, Judge.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether a dismissal for non-attendance should be reviewed where both counsels were absent
Holding
The order dismissing the Cause was reviewed and the Cause reinstated for hearing on the merits
Reasoning
The Court noted that neither the Claimant's nor the Respondent's counsel attended on the hearing date. Since even the Respondent's counsel, who opposed the reinstatement, was absent, it was fair to reinstate the Cause and let it be decided on its merits rather than leave it dismissed for non-attendance.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- Every advocate, as an officer of the Court, must attend Court for mentions or hearings or make suitable alternative arrangements to be represented
Court orders
#- 1.The order dismissing the Cause is reviewed and the Cause is reinstated to be heard and determined on the merits
- 2.Order 3 of the Motion dated 12 March 2015 granted
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the motion
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent power of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to review its own orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Nganga Mangae v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Cause 127 of 2014) [2015] KEELRC 1122 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause dismissed on 11 March 2015; Motion dated 12 March 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1122/eng@2015-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.