Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause (Nakuru) - motion dated 12 July 2016· [2016] KEELRC 285 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Talai Secondary School [2016] KEELRC 285 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
11 November 2016
967 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to revive a union's dismissed case because it waited seven months to act and failed to prove it never received the dismissal notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Industrial Court at Nakuru (Radido Stephen, Judge) determined a motion dated 12 July 2016 filed by the Union, through new advocates on record, seeking review and/or setting aside of an order dismissing the Cause for non-attendance. The procedural history showed several failed attempts at out-of-court settlement, late service of an amended Memorandum of Claim, and non-attendance by the parties at a mention on 9 November 2015, prompting a dismissal notice with a return date of 10 December 2015, on which date neither party appeared and the Court dismissed the Cause. The Union argued it was not afforded a hearing, that the show cause notice was never received, and that limitation would prejudice the Grievants if the Cause was not reinstated. The Respondent contended the Union lacked diligence, had declined settlement meetings, and that the application was brought after inordinate delay. The Court found the show cause notice was addressed to the Union, that no Union official swore an affidavit about its receipt, and that affidavits sworn by the Grievants on the advice of current counsel failed the disclosure threshold on the source of the information; non-service was therefore not demonstrated. The Court also found the approximately 7-month delay in moving the Court unexplained and inordinate, holding that inordinate delay is a fact-specific determination. The Court declined to exercise its discretion in the Union's favour and dismissed the motion dated 12 July 2016 with no order as to costs. Judgment was delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on 11 November 2016.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of the dismissal show cause notice on the Union

Holding

The Union did not demonstrate that the notice was not served; affidavits sworn by the Grievants on advice of counsel did not meet the disclosure threshold

Reasoning

The notice was addressed to the Union, yet no Union official swore an affidavit on whether it was received. The supporting affidavits were sworn by the Grievants, who only stated they were advised by the current advocates that the notice was not received. The advocate's source of that information and the identity of the informing union official were not disclosed, so the depositions failed the disclosure threshold.

p. 2
02

Inordinate delay in applying to set aside the dismissal

Holding

The delay of about 7 months was inordinate and unexplained; the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Union

Reasoning

The Union took about 7 months to move the Court after the dismissal, and the supporting affidavits did not explain why it never confirmed the status of the Cause with the registry. Although inordinate delay is fact-specific, the Court found the explanation insufficient and the delay inordinate, justifying refusal of the discretionary relief.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether delay is inordinate depends on the peculiar facts of each case
  • A party asserting non-service must place credible evidence, including proper disclosure of the source of the information, before the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 12 July 2016 is dismissed with no order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Discretion of the Industrial Court to review/set aside its own order of dismissal of a Cause for want of prosecution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Talai Secondary School [2016] KEELRC 285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause (Nakuru) - motion dated 12 July 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/285/eng@2016-11-11

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