Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No 75 of 2014· [2016] KEELRC 1650 (KLR)

David Muriuki Ngare v Spin Knit Limited [2016] KEELRC 1650 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 February 2016
RSRadido Stephen
679 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to dismiss a 12-year-old delayed case, ruling it would proceed to hearing even without the claimant's participation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued Spin Knit Limited on 14 May 2003 alleging breach of employment contract. Over twelve years later the Cause remained undetermined. The procedural history shows repeated adjournments, attempts at out-of-court settlement, the Claimant's advocate (Mr Karanja) applying to withdraw from acting in April 2015, and the Claimant's failure to file a notice of appointment of a new advocate despite the Court granting him successive periods of time - 30 days and then a further 2 weeks - and later instructing Martin Kamwaro Advocate without filing an appointment. On 15 December 2015 the Respondent was ready to proceed but the Claimant's advocate was said to be before Court 8; by 10.50am neither the Claimant nor his advocate was in court, and the Respondent applied for dismissal of the Cause, giving rise to this ruling. The Court found that the delay was attributable to the Claimant's conduct and that he had been given more than sufficient time to instruct an advocate without any notice of appointment being filed. However, rather than dismiss the suit, the Court emphasised that both claimants and respondents have an interest in the expeditious conclusion of litigation, and directed that the Respondent's case be taken whether or not the Claimant had instructed an advocate, on a date to be agreed immediately thereafter. The ruling was delivered in Nakuru on 26 February 2016 by Radido Stephen Judge. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

The Court declined to dismiss the Cause despite the Claimant's prolonged delay and non-attendance, and instead directed that the Respondent's case proceed on an agreed date regardless of whether the Claimant had instructed an advocate.

Reasoning

The Cause, filed in May 2003, had not been concluded after more than 12 years owing to the Claimant's conduct: failed settlement talks, withdrawal of his advocate, failure to instruct new counsel, and failure to appear on the hearing date. Although the Respondent sought dismissal, the Court considered that both Claimants and Respondents have an interest in expeditious litigation and chose to fix the hearing forthwith.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Litigation should be concluded expeditiously and courts will not tolerate delay caused by a party's own conduct

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause was not dismissed despite the Respondent's application
  2. 2.The Respondent's case to be taken whether or not the Claimant has instructed an advocate, on a date to be agreed immediately hereinafter
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction over employment contract dispute; Cause previously transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Muriuki Ngare v Spin Knit Limited [2016] KEELRC 1650 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 75 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1650/eng@2016-02-26

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