Lejaale L. Maura v Sinohydro Corporation Ltd [2022] KEELRC 737 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Kisumu refused to revive a claimant's dismissed case because he repeatedly ignored court orders and deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether service of the hearing notification on the Claimant's advocate by post at the advocate's known address was sufficient to justify setting aside the dismissal on the ground of lack of awareness
The Court rejected this ground because the advocate did not deny ownership of the postal address or state whether the notification was received
The Deputy Registrar notified the parties of the rescheduled hearing date of 6 November 2018 by post addressed to the Claimant's advocate's postal address in Nakuru. The advocate never denied ownership of that address nor deposed as to whether the notification was received, so the Claimant failed to establish he was unaware of the hearing date.
Whether the Claimant's non-compliance with the order of 2 March 2016 and prior conduct warranted the indulgence of the Court
The Court held the Claimant's conduct was not diligent and declined to exercise its discretion in his favour
The Claimant had obtained leave on 2 March 2016 to file a supplementary list of documents within 21 days but never complied. On 13 December 2016 he and his advocate were absent and the Respondent sought dismissal; the Court indulged him by directing payment of adjournment fees and costs, which were never paid. This history of non-compliance disentitled him to discretionary relief.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution must demonstrate diligence and compliance with court orders before the Court will exercise its discretion in their favour
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion filed in Court on 14 February 2019 is dismissed with no order on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretionary power to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lejaale L. Maura v Sinohydro Corporation Ltd [2022] KEELRC 737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/737/eng@2022-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.