Vincent Ngila Katilu v Airtel Networks (K) Limited [2019] KEELRC 2416 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

25 January 2019

ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson

468 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan employment court refused to revive a lawsuit dismissed after the claimant waited over a year without a credible excuse for the delay.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The claimant applied to set aside the dismissal of his suit, which Lady Justice Mbaru had dismissed on 2nd March 2017 for non-attendance when only the respondent was present. The claimant filed a notice to act in person on 24th July 2018, over a year after the dismissal, together with the present application. He deponed that there was a breakdown in communication when the advocate handling the matter at Rachier and Amolo left the firm, that he had complained to the Ombudsman about the loss of the court file and a vacation date issued in August 2016, and that he learned of the dismissal only in March 2018 when he visited the Registry. The court found the claimant's account implausible, noting the unexplained gap of over one year between his alleged active pursuit of the matter and his discovery of the dismissal, and a further four months' delay in filing the application with no explanation. The court held that setting aside a dismissal for non-attendance is discretionary and requires the applicant to give reasonable cause and to bring the application without unreasonable delay, neither of which was satisfied. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

Discretion to set aside dismissal for non-attendance

Holding

The court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the claimant because the application was made after unreasonable delay and no reasonable cause was shown

Reasoning

The suit was dismissed on 2nd March 2017 for non-attendance. The claimant only filed a notice to act in person and the application over a year later, in July 2018. The court found his account of following up his case between December 2015 and March 2018 implausible, noted he took a further four months to file the application without explanation, and held that both reasonable cause and absence of unreasonable delay are prerequisites to the exercise of discretion.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Setting aside an order of dismissal for non-attendance is discretionary; the applicant must give reasonable cause and bring the application without unreasonable delay

Court orders

1.The application is dismissed with costs
2.It is so ordered

Jurisdiction invoked: Inherent discretionary power to set aside an order of dismissal for non-attendance

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Vincent Ngila Katilu v Airtel Networks (K) Limited [2019] KEELRC 2416 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2416/eng@2019-01-25

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