Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2021] KEELRC 200 (KLR)

Joseph Muregi Chege v Cool Rivers Hotel Ltd [2021] KEELRC 200 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 December 2021
765 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court reinstated a 2014 claim dismissed without proper service of the dismissal notice, but only on strict no-adjournment conditions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant filed a memorandum of claim on 10th July, 2014, which the Respondent defended. The cause came before four different Judges of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru but never proceeded to hearing. After failed hearing dates on 9th April, 2019 and 26th March, 2020, the Deputy Registrar issued a Notice to Show Cause on 24th September, 2021 why the cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, served by email. When the NTSC came up on 12th October, 2021, there was no appearance for the Claimant, and the court dismissed the cause for want of prosecution with no orders as to costs, the Respondent supporting dismissal. The Claimant then filed a Notice of Motion dated 26th October, 2021 seeking reinstatement, contending that the NTSC was sent to an email address he no longer used, that his Advocate on record (who came on record on 23rd July, 2021) should have been served, and attributing the delay to Covid-19 related confusion and registry inaction. The court found the explanations for the delay neither convincing nor adequate, noting no serious efforts to fix the matter for hearing. However, because neither the Claimant nor his Advocate was served with the NTSC, the court, albeit reluctantly, gave the Claimant a last chance and allowed the reinstatement application with costs in the cause. The matter was directed to be heard on priority basis, with no adjournments to be allowed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution should be set aside and the cause reinstated

Holding

The dismissal was set aside because the Claimant and his Advocate on record were not properly served with the Notice to Show Cause, even though the reasons for the delay were unconvincing.

Reasoning

The court found the explanations of Covid-19 confusion and registry inaction inadequate and noted no serious efforts to fix the matter for hearing in 2020 and 2021. However, the lack of service of the NTSC on the Claimant or his Advocate, who came on record on 23rd July, 2021, was a procedural irregularity that justified giving the Claimant a last chance to prosecute the matter, albeit reluctantly, given the age of the cause (filed 2014).

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Failure to serve a party or their Advocate on record with a Notice to Show Cause before dismissal of a cause is a ground for reinstatement
  • A court may impose conditions on reinstatement, including priority hearing and denial of adjournments, to protect the court's docket and reputation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th October, 2021 is allowed with costs in the cause
  2. 2.The cause reinstated (implied by allowance of the reinstatement application)
  3. 3.The matter to be heard on priority basis
  4. 4.No application for adjournment will be allowed
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to reinstate a cause dismissed for want of prosecution (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Muregi Chege v Cool Rivers Hotel Ltd [2021] KEELRC 200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/200/eng@2021-12-07

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