Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No 587 of 2019· [2023] KEELRC 349 (KLR)

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause 587 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 349 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
9 February 2023
2,056 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to dismiss a delayed union case, ruling court backlogs were partly to blame, but gave the union 30 days to fix a hearing date.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent (employer) applied on August 18, 2022 for dismissal of the claimant union's cause for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016, citing a delay of one year and ten months since the matter was last in court, and relying on John Njoroge Wanjiku, Pius Wanjala and the Utalii Transport principles. The claimant union, through Isaac G M Andabwa, explained that its former advocates had advised that no hearing dates were being issued for 2019 matters owing to court backlog, that the case was not in the priority list for quick disposal, and that the union had since changed advocates and was ready to set the matter down; the suit involves 76 grievants allegedly unlawfully terminated. The court framed a single issue: whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution. It took judicial notice that in 2021 no dates were issued for 2019 matters as the ELRC then had only 12 judges nationwide, and held the claimant was not wholly to blame, counsel bearing responsibility for any delay. Dismissal would be very prejudicial to the grievants, and no prejudice would be occasioned to the applicant by a hearing on the merits. The court declined to dismiss the suit but gave the claimant 30 days to fix it for hearing, failing which it would stand automatically dismissed, and awarded throw away costs of Kshs 15,000/= to the respondents payable before fixing for hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 16 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016

Holding

Dismissal was not warranted. Although no action was taken for over one year, the delay was partly attributable to the court's backlog and unavailability of hearing dates for 2019 matters, and the claimant relied on its former counsel. Dismissing the suit would prejudice the 76 grievants.

Reasoning

The court applied the Utalii Transport principles and took judicial notice that in 2021 no hearing dates were issued for 2019 matters because the ELRC then had only 12 judges nationwide. The claimant had expressed willingness to prosecute the suit involving 76 grievants allegedly unlawfully terminated. No prejudice would befall the applicant if the matter proceeded to a hearing on the merits. The court therefore declined dismissal but imposed conditions: fix the matter within 30 days and pay throw away costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • For an application to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution to succeed, the applicant must satisfy the one-year threshold, show inordinate and inexcusable delay, show prejudice, and show a fair trial cannot be achieved
  • Where delay in setting a matter down for hearing is attributable to court backlog and unavailability of hearing dates, the claimant is not wholly to blame and dismissal would be unjust

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated August 18, 2022 seeking dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution is not granted
  2. 2.The claimant is given another opportunity to have the matter fixed for hearing within 30 days, failing which the suit shall stand automatically dismissed
  3. 3.The claimants are ordered to pay Kshs 15,000/= as throw away costs to the respondents before the case is fixed for hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2016Rule 16
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (6)

  • John Njoroge Wanjiku v Aldonai Enterprises Ltd
    2022 eKLR
  • Pius Wanjala v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Medical Services and 4 others
    2021 eKLR
  • Utalii Transport Company Limited and 3 Others v NIC Bank and Another
    2014 eKLR
  • Juma Ndegwa Nzowa v Dunhill Consulting Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Sospiter Omariba Mogere v Mex Logistics Africa Limited
    [2021] eKLR
  • David Eris v Balloon Safaris Limited
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause 587 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 587 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/349/eng@2023-02-09

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