George Wekesa v Multimedia University of Kenya [2020] KEELRC 14 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
- 2.Whether the claimant had shown reasonable cause for the inaction since pleadings closed on 3rd October, 2018
- 3.What sanctions or conditions should attach if the suit is allowed to proceed
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution
Dismissal was refused in this instance but a costs sanction and timelines were imposed, with automatic dismissal if the claimant remains inactive
The court found the claimant had taken no action since pleadings closed on 3rd October, 2018, and rejected as untrue the claimant's assertion that a hearing date had been fixed by the court. However, to ensure each party is heard on the merit, the court imposed a sanction - costs of the application, a 30-day deadline to fix a hearing date, and automatic dismissal with costs upon further inaction.
Whether the claimant showed reasonable cause for the inaction
No reasonable cause was shown; the claimant's Replying Affidavit was found not completely true
The claimant's advocate asserted that a hearing date had been fixed by the court and that the court was addressing older backlog matters. The court found from the record that no such date had been fixed by the court, and held that while the court prioritised older matters, each litigant must actively move the registry to secure a hearing date rather than rely on backlog priorities.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 16 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, parties have one year to fix a suit for hearing, failing which the suit may be dismissed by the court or on application where no reasonable cause is shown
- Each litigant has the responsibility to move the court and secure a hearing date and cannot sit back waiting for the other party or the court
Court orders
#- 1.The application seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution was not allowed
- 2.The claimant to meet the respondent's costs of the application assessed at Ksh.50,000, payable within 30 days
- 3.The claimant to move and ensure a hearing date is allocated within the next 30 days
- 4.Where there is inaction, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs as of 30th January, 2021
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Rule 16
Relief refused
#Dismissal of the claimant's suit for want of prosecution with costs
The court opted for a sanction to ensure the claimant's inaction is addressed while allowing the suit to proceed to a hearing on the merit
Costs
Claimant to pay the respondent's costs of the application assessed at Ksh.50,000 within 30 days; suit to stand dismissed with costs if there is further inaction as of 30th January, 2021
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, the application seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution shall not be allowed in this instance, save the claimant shall meet the respondent's costs herein assessed at ksh.50, 000 to be paid within 30 days; the claimant shall move and ensure a hearing date is allocated within the next 30 days; and Where there is inaction, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs as of 30th January, 2021.
Under Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (the Rules) parties have one (1) year to move the court and fix a suit for hearing and failure to which, such suit can be dismissed by the court or upon application by either party where no reasonable cause is shown to justify inaction.
Since 3rd October, 2018 the claimant has taken no action to have the matter heard and determined.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates: the affidavit alleges pleading closed on 23rd August, 2018, while the judgment records pleadings closed on 3rd October, 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Wekesa v Multimedia University of Kenya [2020] KEELRC 14 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/14/eng@2020-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.