Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 565 of 2014 (Originally Nakuru Civil Case No. 2 of 2003)· [2016] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)

Peter Njuguna Murima v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2016] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 March 2016
RSRadido Stephen
426 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to revive a 12-year-old employment case, ruling that litigants must actively follow up with their lawyers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Radido Stephen, Judge) dealt with a motion by the Claimant seeking to set aside the Court's orders of 4 December 2015 dismissing his Cause for non-attendance on 23 November 2015, and to reinstate it for hearing. The Cause, originally Nakuru Civil Case No. 2 of 2003, had a history of the Claimant's disinterest in prosecuting the claim. The Claimant advanced three reasons for reinstatement: his advocate used a postal address he had long stopped using, he was on bed rest from 20 to 27 November 2015, and he had sold his mobile phone and could not be reached. Although a replying affidavit opposing the motion had been filed, the Respondent did not oppose the application at the submissions stage. The Court nonetheless declined to exercise its discretion in the Claimant's favour. It found that the lack of communication between the Claimant and his counsel had antecedents on the record, and that there was no explanation at all as to how the Claimant and his counsel got in touch after the dismissal, a disclosure the Court regarded as material. The Court held that a diligent party ought to follow up the progress of his or her case with the legal representative on record. Accordingly, despite the Respondent's non-opposition, the Court dismissed the motion dated 15 December 2015 with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant showed sufficient grounds to exercise the Court's discretion to set aside dismissal of the suit

Holding

The Court declined to exercise its discretion because the Claimant gave no satisfactory explanation, and the communication failure had antecedents on the record

Reasoning

The Claimant advanced three reasons: use of a stale postal address by his advocate, bed rest from 20 to 27 November 2015, and sale of his mobile phone. The Court found no demonstration of entitlement to the discretionary relief, noted prior disinterest in prosecuting the claim over the years, and found it material that no explanation was given as to how Claimant and counsel communicated after the dismissal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A diligent party ought to follow up the progress of his or her case with the legal representative on record

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 15 December 2015 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a cause transferred from the High Court (originally Nakuru Civil Case No. 2 of 2003)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Njuguna Murima v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2016] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 565 of 2014 (Originally Nakuru Civil Case No. 2 of 2003). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1577/eng@2016-03-11

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