Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No 775 of 2012· [2018] KEELRC 167 (KLR)

David Mwangi Mburu v Hotel Intercontinental Nairobi Ltd [2018] KEELRC 167 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (Industrial Court)
20 December 2018
2,088 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant filed a Notice of Motion dated 24th April 2018 seeking to set aside an order of 16th April 2018 dismissing his suit for non-attendance, on the ground that his advocates were served with a mention notice for 17th April 2018 rather than a hearing notice, and that the matter was converted into a hearing during the court's service week without their knowledge. The Respondent opposed, contending that the service week was well publicized, the cause list showed the matter fixed for hearing, and that the claimant slept on his rights, with prejudice arising from the matter having been pending over six years and key witnesses having left its employment. The court framed four issues, including whether it was functus officio, whether the claimant was notified of the hearing date, and whether the Respondent would suffer prejudice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Menginya Salim Murgani v Kenya Revenue Authority, the court held that dismissal for want of prosecution is a final determination on the merits, after which the court becomes functus officio save for a properly invoked power of review. Since the application sought setting aside rather than review, the court found its jurisdiction was not properly invoked, upheld the Respondent's objection, and struck out the Notice of Motion. No costs were awarded to the Respondent because she did not move the court for the dismissal and did not attend court on the material date. The merit-based questions of notification and prejudice were not reached.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court is functus officio and without jurisdiction to set aside its own order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution

Holding

The court is functus officio; dismissal for want of prosecution is a final determination and the court can only revisit it through review, which was not invoked

Reasoning

The court reasoned that dismissal for want of prosecution amounts to a final determination on the merits because the court finds that the claimant has tendered no evidence to prove the case. After such a decision the court becomes functus officio save for a properly invoked power of review. The application was for setting aside, not review, and the provisions relied upon did not donate power to revisit a final decision, so jurisdiction was not properly invoked.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant was notified of the hearing date of 17th April 2018

Holding

Not determined, as the court struck out the application for want of jurisdiction

Reasoning

Although the court framed the issue of notification, it did not reach the merits of this question. The claimant's position was that he was served with a mention notice and not a hearing notice; the Respondent contended the service week was publicized and the cause list showed the matter fixed for hearing. The functus officio finding disposed of the application without resolving this factual dispute.

p. 3
03

Whether the Respondent stands to suffer any prejudice if the judgment is set aside

Holding

Not determined, as the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction

Reasoning

The Respondent claimed prejudice from incurring further costs, the matter having been pending over six years, and key witnesses having left its employment, making evidence difficult to obtain. The court did not adjudicate this issue because it found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application at all.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court becomes functus officio after passing judgment and cannot revisit the judgment on merits save as provided by law
  • Dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution is a final determination of the suit on the merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Struck out the Notice of Motion seeking to set aside the order of 16th/17th April 2018 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution
  2. 2.No costs awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Section 1A
  • Civil Procedure RulesNot specified

Cases cited (9)

  • Wanjiku vs. Esso Kenya Ltd
    [1995-1998] EA 332
  • Tana and Athi River Development Authority vs. Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Shah vs. Mbogo
    [1968] EA 93
  • Allen vs. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Limited
  • Ivita vs. Kyumba (Irita vs. Kyumba)
    [1984] KLR 441
  • Keren Buaron vs. Sony Holdings Limited & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Mwangi S. Kimenyi vs. Attorney General & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Shah Hirji Manek Limited vs. Ramesh Premchand Shah & 3 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Menginya Salim Murgani v Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Industrial Court; the court held its jurisdiction had not been properly invoked as it was functus officio

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Mwangi Mburu v Hotel Intercontinental Nairobi Ltd [2018] KEELRC 167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 775 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/167/eng@2018-12-20

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