Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause (number not stated in judgment)· [2017] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)

Patric Handa v Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd (Cause 20 of 2017) [2017] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 September 2017
RSRadido Stephen
652 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 reinstated a dismissed unfair termination claim, but warned the claimant that repeated failure to attend court nearly cost him the case permanently.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Patrick Handa (Claimant/applicant) sued Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd on 26 May 2014 alleging breach of contract and unfair termination of employment. The litigation was marked by repeated non-attendance by the Claimant: an adjournment on 17 March 2015, failure to attend a mention on 19 July 2016, non-attendance by both parties on 27 October 2016, and outstanding adjournment fees. When the matter was eventually listed for hearing in Eldoret on 24 July 2017, following rescheduling by the Deputy Registrar after 26 June was declared a public holiday, neither party appeared and the Court dismissed the cause. The Claimant then filed a motion dated 3 August 2017 seeking review and setting aside of the dismissal orders and reinstatement of the claim for hearing, contending his Nakuru-based advocates did not see the notice board notice rescheduling the hearing. The Respondent indicated it would not oppose the application. The Court, through Radido Stephen J, observed that the applicant had failed to exhibit diligence in prosecuting the cause, as shown by the repeated failures to attend. Nonetheless, because the Respondent did not oppose the application, the Court allowed it, set aside the dismissal of 24 July 2017, reinstated the claim, and made no order as to costs. Judgment was delivered in Eldoret on 29 September 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to set aside the dismissal of the cause for non-attendance and reinstate it

Holding

The application was allowed, principally because the Respondent did not oppose it, despite the applicant's lack of diligence

Reasoning

The Court noted the applicant's poor prosecution record: multiple adjournments, failures to attend mentions, and non-payment of adjournment fees, culminating in dismissal on 24 July 2017 when neither party attended. The applicant explained his advocates, based in Nakuru, did not see the Deputy Registrar's notice board notice rescheduling the hearing. The Court observed that reinstatement requires the exercise of judicial discretion, but allowed the application because the Respondent indicated it would not oppose it, with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant seeking reinstatement of a cause dismissed for non-attendance must exhibit diligence in prosecuting the cause

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order dismissing the Claimant's cause on 24 July 2017 for non-attendance was reviewed and set aside
  2. 2.The Claimant's claim was reinstated for hearing
  3. 3.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to review/set aside its own orders dismissing a cause for non-attendance

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patric Handa v Rai Plywoods (K) Ltd (Cause 20 of 2017) [2017] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Cause (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1974/eng@2017-09-29

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