Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2023] KEELRC 2491 (KLR)

Otieno v Maseno University (Cause 300 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2491 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2023
RSRADIDO STEPHEN
968 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to revive a dismissed case, punishing years of missed hearings and a six-month delay in applying.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Motion filed on 23 August 2023 by the Claimant in an employment Cause before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu, seeking reinstatement of the suit for hearing on the merit after its dismissal on 6 February 2023 for non-attendance. The Cause had been dismissed when the Claimant, though served with a hearing notice that was acknowledged, failed to attend or to be represented at the hearing. The Claimant explained that the advocate with the brief had been involved in an accident, and that the advocate tasked with prosecuting the case mistakenly appeared before the Deputy Registrar instead of the Judge, and by the time he was redirected, the Cause had been dismissed. The Respondent opposed the Motion, pointing to the Claimant's inactivity for nearly seven years, awareness of the hearing date, failure to comply with court orders, and inordinate delay in filing the application. The Claimant also failed to file submissions within the agreed timelines. Reviewing the procedural history, the Court catalogued repeated non-attendance by the Claimant and/or his advocate from March 2018 through 2022, a Notice to Show Cause issued on 19 February 2020, and non-compliance with directions. The Court found the explanation about appearing before the Deputy Registrar unpersuasive, noting that cause lists are published identifying the judicial officer before whom a Cause is listed. The Court concluded the Claimant displayed casualness and indolence, and that the six-month delay in filing the Motion was inordinate. The Motion was dismissed with costs on 18 October 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a party seeking reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance demonstrated sufficient cause

Holding

The application failed; the Claimant's history of non-attendance, non-compliance with directions, failure to file submissions, and the six-month delay in moving the Court amounted to inordinate delay and indolence

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the procedural history from March 2018, showing repeated non-attendance by the Claimant and/or his advocate across numerous mention and hearing dates. A Notice to Show Cause had already been issued in February 2020. The explanation of an advocate's accident and mistaken appearance before the Deputy Registrar was unconvincing since cause lists are published, and the Claimant was alerted to the dismissal on the same day yet waited about six months to file the reinstatement Motion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate ought to know that hearings of Causes proceed before a Judge and not the Deputy Registrar; parties are directed by published cause lists as to the judicial officer before whom a Cause will be called

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated (filed 23 August 2023) seeking reinstatement of the suit was dismissed with costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Otieno v Maseno University (Cause 300 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2491/eng@2023-10-18

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