Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause not stated in judgment· [2020] KEELRC 773 (KLR)

Philip Theuri v National Police Service Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 773 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 June 2020
RSRadido Stephen
420 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi on a notice of motion filed on 4 March 2020 by the Inspector General of Police seeking dismissal of the Claimant's Cause for want of prosecution. The Respondents argued that despite enjoying interim orders, the Claimant had taken no steps to prosecute the Cause since 28 November 2017, constituting inordinate delay that prejudiced the Respondents. The Court noted that the Claimant, a Police Officer, had on 27 January 2017 secured an injunction restraining his deployment to a Police Station within Taita Taveta, and that the parties had sought out-of-court settlement on 28 March 2017 with nothing on record showing the outcome. The Court observed that under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules such an injunction automatically lapses after one year unless the Court determines otherwise, and the Claimant had never sought its extension nor taken any steps to prosecute the Cause, despite enjoying the injunction for over three years. The Court acknowledged resource constraints in scheduling 2017 suits but held this did not excuse the Claimant's indolence. Rather than dismissing the Cause, the Court discharged the injunctive orders of 27 January 2017 (extended 18 October 2017) and awarded costs in the cause. The judgment was delivered virtually on 19 June 2020 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Cause should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

The Court declined to dismiss the Cause but discharged the injunctive orders, finding the Claimant indolent for failing to prosecute the Cause and failing to seek extension of the lapsed injunction.

Reasoning

The Claimant obtained an injunction on 27 January 2017 restraining deployment, extended on 18 October 2017. Under Order 40 Rule 6 CPR the injunction automatically lapsed after one year and the Claimant never sought its extension. He also took no steps to prosecute the Cause since 28 November 2017. Although resource constraints had delayed scheduling of 2017 suits, that did not excuse the Claimant's indolence. The Court chose a proportionate remedy: discharge of the injunctive orders rather than outright dismissal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An interim injunction under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules automatically lapses after one year unless the Court determines otherwise.
  • A litigant who enjoys an injunctive order but takes no steps to prosecute the cause is indolent, and general resource constraints in scheduling suits do not excuse that indolence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The interlocutory injunctive orders given on 27 January 2017 and extended on 18 October 2017 were discharged
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 6
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the Cause; not expressly stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Philip Theuri v National Police Service Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 773 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/773/eng@2020-06-19

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