Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedConstitutional Petition (details not stated in the extract)· [2019] KEELRC 2135 (KLR)

Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health & 2 others (Cause 110 of 2017) [2019] KEELRC 2135 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 March 2019
RSRadido Stephen
1,017 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to reinstate Omtatah's constitutional petition because he missed court dates and filing deadlines, showing courts will punish parties who ignore timelines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, filed a constitutional petition on 20 December 2017 alleging violations of the Constitution, together with an urgent application for conservatory orders. The application was certified urgent, but the Petitioner later abandoned it in favour of expedited hearing of the Petition. The Court set successive timelines for filing of responses, replying affidavits and submissions. Neither side complied diligently: the Petitioner filed his submissions roughly three months late, on 20 November 2018, the very day fixed for highlighting submissions, and did not serve them on the Respondents or attend court. In his absence, and on the Respondents' application, the Court dismissed the Petition. The Petitioner moved the Court the next day seeking reinstatement. After inter partes directions and the filing of responses and submissions by the Respondents, the Court ruled on 1 March 2019. It found that at the moment of dismissal the Petitioner's submissions were not yet on file, that his conduct regarding timelines and attendance had been wanting, and that the Respondents' conduct was equally wanting. It held that submissions are integral to petition litigation and that cooperation with court directives is an imperative of the overriding objective. The Court found no entitlement to notice of dismissal since the Petitioner knew the listing date and was absent. The reinstatement application dated 20 November 2018 was declined, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a petitioner is entitled to notice before dismissal of a petition for non-attendance

Holding

No such notice was required where the petitioner knew the date fixed for highlighting submissions and failed to attend

Reasoning

The petitioner was aware the Petition was listed for highlighting of submissions on 20 November 2018 yet was absent when it was called out. Having been served with the cause list date through the court's directions, arguing that a specific dismissal notice was needed was found ingenious. The dismissal flowed from his own non-attendance and non-compliance with the filing timelines.

p. 2
02

Effect of parties' failure to adhere to court-set timelines

Holding

Both petitioner and respondents were culpable; the overriding objective obliges cooperation with court directives and non-compliance justified dismissal

Reasoning

The court found that the petitioner filed submissions three months late and was absent on the highlight date, while respondents also repeatedly failed to meet filing deadlines. Cooperation with directives is imperative under the overriding objective. The court therefore declined to reinstate a petition dismissed for such inaction.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Litigants must cooperate with court directives issued to achieve expeditious and proportionate hearings, as an imperative of the overriding objective
  • Submissions are an integral part of the hearing in constitutional petitions because viva voce evidence is usually not taken

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20 November 2018 seeking reinstatement of the Petition is declined
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitutional petition alleging violations of the Constitution (specific provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health & 2 others (Cause 110 of 2017) [2019] KEELRC 2135 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Constitutional Petition (details not stated in the extract). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2135/eng@2019-03-01

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