Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 325 of 2019· [2023] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)

Ombati v New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd (Cause 325 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 October 2023
1,741 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment claim dismissed for repeated non-attendance stayed dismissed because the claimant could not prove the court notices were never served.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi by Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2022 seeking setting aside of the dismissal of his Claim, an order that the Claim be set down for hearing forthwith, and costs in the cause. The suit was dismissed on 18th July 2022 pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause after the Claimant failed to attend Court on earlier mention dates (6th August 2020 and 25th May 2022) and when the Notice itself came up. The Claimant's Counsel, Mr. Khalwale, attributed the non-attendance to non-service of the Notice to Show Cause and to Covid-19 interruptions, and relied on CMC Holdings Ltd v Nzioki. The Respondent, through Company Secretary Irene Mbito, opposed the application, contending that the letters allegedly written to the Court were not filed through the e-filing portal, were not served, and that the delay was prolonged and inexcusable, relying on Ivita v Kyumbu among other authorities. Justice Stella Rutto applied Shah v Mbogo and Ivita v Kyumbu. The Court found that the Notice to Show Cause was dispatched by email to the Claimant's Advocate's disclosed and known addresses, which were the same addresses in his pleadings and letterhead, rendering the claim of non-service implausible. The Court further held that the case belonged to the Claimant, who could not blame the Respondent for failure to notify him. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 6th October 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

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

Holding

The application fails; service of the Notice to Show Cause by email to the Advocate's disclosed address was effective, and the Claimant's prior non-attendances demonstrated lack of diligence, so no valid reason for reinstatement exists

Reasoning

The Court applied Shah v Mbogo on discretion and Ivita v Kyumbu on reinstatement. The Notice to Show Cause was emailed to addresses the Claimant's Advocate himself disclosed in pleadings and on his letterhead, making his claim of non-service implausible. Both parties were absent when the Notice came up, and the Claimant had previously failed to attend on 6th August 2020 and 25th May 2022. The explanation for the dismissal was therefore inexcusable and the discretion was not exercised in the Claimant's favour.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to set aside dismissal of a suit is to be exercised to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist deliberate obstruction or delay
  • A suit will only be dismissed for want of prosecution where the delay is prolonged and inexcusable and justice cannot be done despite the delay; the defendant must show prejudice
  • A litigant whose case is dismissed for want of prosecution cannot attribute his non-attendance to the opponent's failure to notify him; the case belongs to the litigant who must prosecute it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 28th November, 2022 seeking setting aside of the dismissal of the Claim is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (5)

  • CMC Holdings Limited vs Nzioki
    (2004) eKLR
  • Ivita vs Kyumbu
    (1984) KLR 441
  • Jim Rodgers Gitonga Njeru vs Al-Husnain Motors Limited & 2 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • James Mwangi Gathara & another vs Officer Commanding Station Loitoktok & 2 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Shah vs Mbogo
    [1967] EA 116 and 123B
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (provision not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ombati v New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd (Cause 325 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 325 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2417/eng@2023-10-06

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