Benard Kibet v Brydges Centre & another [2016] KEELRC 1289 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment claim was dismissed after the worker ignored his own lawsuit for five years, showing courts will not wait forever.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Dismissal of the Cause for non-prosecution
The Cause was dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution, there being no evidence of any step taken by the Claimant since 2012 and no appearance by either party when the Cause was called out
After the 2012 adjournment (due to lack of proof of service of hearing notice on the Respondents), the record showed no steps by the Claimant to prosecute the Cause. To clear backlog at the Nairobi registry, the Deputy Registrar advertised a service week from 18 to 22 April 2016 and issued specific hearing notices. When the Cause was called out, there was no appearance or representation for any party, warranting dismissal for want of prosecution.
Legal principles established
#- A cause may be dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution where the claimant has taken no steps to prosecute it for a period exceeding five years, including where both parties fail to appear when the cause is called out during a court service week
Court orders
#- 1.The Cause be dismissed for non-attendance and non-prosecution as no steps have been taken for over 5 years
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court's original jurisdiction over employment disputes (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benard Kibet v Brydges Centre & another [2016] KEELRC 1289 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause filed 11 April 2011 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1289/eng@2016-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.