Siaji v Craft Silicon Limited (Cause 157 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 1861 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employment case in Kenya was dismissed after the claimant sat on it for over two years, showing courts will punish unexplained delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Test for dismissal for want of prosecution under rule 16
The applicant need only show no step has been taken for one year without good cause; the burden then shifts to the claimant to show sufficient cause
The court adopted the analysis in Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited, applying rule 16 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016. A cumulative delay of over two years, including over a year following a prior court directive to expedite, satisfied the rule. The claimant's explanation of administrative inefficiencies at counsel's office was unsupported by evidence of any follow-up effort.
Whether the claimant's explanation excused the delay
No - counsel's office inefficiencies did not excuse the claimant, who bore the duty to prosecute
The claimant alleged staff transition at his advocate's firm caused the lapse, but produced no evidence of any efforts to follow up after November 24, 2021. The court held a litigant cannot blame counsel and must remain vigilant, associating itself with authority that a case belongs to the litigant, not the advocate.
Whether article 159(2)(d) and the right to fair trial warranted sustaining the suit
No - constitutional dictates against technicality do not excuse indolence or override procedural rules
The claimant invoked article 50 and article 159(2)(d) to resist dismissal. The court endorsed the Supreme Court's position in Zacharia Okoth Obado v Edward Akong'o Oyugi that article 159(2)(d) is not a panacea for procedural shortfalls, and that parties must comply with rules for orderliness in proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant who has been pardoned one lapse and again fails to prosecute for an inordinate period without explanation risks dismissal for want of prosecution; justice aids the vigilant
- Suits should be prosecuted, not left parked in the registry, and respondents are entitled to expeditious disposal
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2.Costs of the application and suit awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, rule 16
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Siaji v Craft Silicon Limited (Cause 157 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 1861 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1861/eng@2023-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.