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 judgment· [2018] KEELRC 105 (KLR)

Hilda Anyika Isuruti v Poonam Chaudhary [2018] KEELRC 105 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 December 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
345 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to dismiss a delayed employment claim because the hold-up was caused by court backlog, not the claimant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 31 May 2018, filed by the Respondent under Rule 16(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016, supported by an affidavit of counsel Paul Amuga. The Respondent sought dismissal of the Claimant's claim for want of prosecution and costs, contending that the Claimant had taken no steps since filing a Reply to the Response on 12 April 2017, had lost interest, and that the continued delay subjected the Respondent to escalating legal costs and perpetual anxiety. The Claimant opposed the application, explaining that she had been unable to set the suit down for hearing because of a notice from the Deputy Registrar, ELRC Nairobi, indicating that no cases filed after 2015 would be fixed for hearing due to case backlog. The Court, per Wasilwa J, took judicial notice that the court diary was clogged and that an administrative decision had been made to hear only cases filed five years and over. On that basis the Court found the Claimant had not deliberately refused or ignored to prosecute the claim. The application was dismissed. The Court directed the parties to take a hearing date at the registry according to the Court's diary and ordered costs in the cause. The judgment was dated and delivered in open Court on 4 December 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

The application fails because the Claimant's inability to set the suit down was caused by the Court's backlog and administrative decision, not deliberate neglect

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the Claimant had lost interest and taken no steps since filing a Reply in April 2017. The Claimant showed a notice from the Deputy Registrar indicating no cases filed after 2015 would be fixed. The Court acknowledged its diary was clogged and an administrative decision existed to hear only cases filed five years and over, so the delay was not the Claimant's fault.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit will not be dismissed for want of prosecution where the delay in setting it down is attributable to the Court's administrative directions rather than the plaintiff's inaction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's application dated 31.5.2018 seeking dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed
  2. 2.Parties to take a hearing date at the registry according to the Court's diary
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016Rule 16(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 16(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hilda Anyika Isuruti v Poonam Chaudhary [2018] KEELRC 105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/105/eng@2018-12-04

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