Henry Waruku v Pride Kings Security [2020] KEELRC 1213 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Employment Court in Nairobi refused to revive a lawsuit the claimant left idle for over two years without ever serving the other side.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution should be set aside
The application was dismissed; the applicant gave no explanation for failing to serve the suit for over two years, and reinstatement would prejudice the respondent.
The suit was filed on 27th October 2016 but summons and statement of claim were never served on the respondent. By 3rd December 2018, when the claimant's counsel conceded the suit was never served, more than two years had elapsed. The court found no justifiable reason for the delay, held that reinstatement would be vexatious and unjust to the respondent's right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1), and that the delay defeated the overriding objective.
Legal principles established
#- Inordinate delay by a claimant to serve a suit defeats the overriding objective of expeditious determination of suits
- Undue delay in prosecuting a suit violates the respondent's right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The application lacks merit and is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to set aside/review orders dismissing suits; the ruling also references Article 159(2)(d), Article 48, Article 50(1) of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 21 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Henry Waruku v Pride Kings Security [2020] KEELRC 1213 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1213/eng@2020-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.