Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Cause transferred from the High Court in April 2014)· [2016] KEELRC 1689 (KLR)

James Archimedes Gichana v Pyrethrum Board of Kenya & another [2016] KEELRC 1689 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 February 2016
RSRadido Stephen
595 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

#

An employee's unfair termination claim was thrown out after eight years of delays and a missed hearing, showing Kenyan courts will dismiss stale cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
James Archimedes Gichana sued Pyrethrum Board of Kenya in the High Court in 2007 alleging unlawful termination of employment. The Cause was transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru around 22 April 2014. The procedural history was turbulent: the Claimant sought leave to amend the Memorandum of Claim repeatedly (May 2014, September 2014, and again on 17 December 2014), ultimately introducing a second Respondent on 22 December 2014; the Respondent's advocates moved to cease acting and were then re-appointed; and fresh applications including one for contempt were filed. The Court fixed the Cause for hearing on 8 December 2015. When the Cause was called out on that date, neither the Claimant nor his advocate attended court. The Respondents' advocates sought dismissal. The Court took time to review the bulky file and delivered its ruling on 19 February 2016. It found that the Claimant had not been keen to have the Cause determined expeditiously and on the merits, and had used all avenues available to frustrate the hearing both before the High Court and this Court. Noting that labour disputes ought to be heard and determined expeditiously under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and that the Cause had run for eight years without being heard, the Court held that the interest of justice demanded dismissal. The Cause was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

Dismissal was warranted because the Claimant was not keen to have the Cause determined expeditiously and repeatedly sought adjournments and amendments

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the procedural history: filed in 2007, transferred in 2014, beset by successive applications to amend the claim, contempt applications, and changes of advocates. When the Cause was called out for hearing on 8 December 2015 neither the Claimant nor his advocate attended. The Court concluded the Claimant had used all available avenues to frustrate the hearing both in the High Court and in this Court, and that justice demanded dismissal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Labour disputes ought to be heard and determined expeditiously under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, with simple and quick procedures free of Civil Procedure legalism
  • It is in the interest of justice that suits are heard and determined expeditiously

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's Cause is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActNot specified
  • Civil Procedure Act and RulesNot specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, upon transfer of the Cause from the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Archimedes Gichana v Pyrethrum Board of Kenya & another [2016] KEELRC 1689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment (Cause transferred from the High Court in April 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1689/eng@2016-02-19

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