Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 644 of 2016· [2023] KEELRC 3442 (KLR)

Joel v G North & Son Ltd (Cause 644 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 3442 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 November 2023
NMNzioki Wa Makau
1,027 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 lawsuit because the claimant missed his virtual hearing and waited two months to ask for reinstatement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant moved the court by notice of motion dated 8th May 2023 seeking reinstatement of his suit, which had been dismissed for non-attendance when set down for hearing on 8th March 2023. He argued the non-attendance was inadvertent and that he stood to suffer irreparable prejudice, urging that triable issues deserved determination. The Respondent, through a replying affidavit sworn by Mr. E. M. Kariuki on 17th August 2023, opposed, contending no sufficient cause had been shown. The application was disposed of by written submissions. The Claimant cited several authorities on reinstatement, including Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuka Mugiria and Julius Kibiwott Tuwei v Reuben Argut & 7 others, submitting that a mistake is a mistake and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Respondent relied on authorities including Margaret Ndunge Kioko v Manase Ananda Caleb and Utalii Transport Company Ltd v NIC Bank Ltd, arguing the Claimant logged in late, no prejudice was suffered, and the application was filed over two months after dismissal. The court held that reinstatement requires compelling reasons; parties in virtual sessions must log in at least 15 minutes early, so the Claimant should have been present by 8.45am, and absence even after 9.00am was not sufficient cause. His delay in filing the motion showed a lackadaisical, pedestrian approach. The application was denied with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sufficient cause was shown for reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance

Holding

No sufficient cause was shown; the Claimant's non-attendance and delayed application did not merit the discretionary relief

Reasoning

The court noted parties must log into virtual sessions at least 15 minutes before the scheduled time, so the Claimant ought to have been present by 8.45am. Even arriving at 9.00am would not suffice. The Claimant's claim of travelling to Nairobi yet being unavailable was found confounding, and the two-month delay in filing the motion showed a lackadaisical, pedestrian approach to the litigation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement of a dismissed suit requires the applicant to avail compelling reasons for the exercise of the court's discretion
  • Parties in virtual court sessions must log in at least 15 minutes before the scheduled time; failure to be present at the scheduled time or later is not sufficient cause for reinstatement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's notice of motion dated 8th May 2023 seeking reinstatement of the suit is denied
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Cases cited (11)

  • Niraj Dharmadhikhari v Professional Media Africa Limited
    eKLR
  • Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuka Mugiria
    [1983] eKLR
  • Belinda Murai & 9 others v Amos Wainaina
    [1979] eKLR
  • Reynolds Construction Co (Nig.) Ltd v Festus M'Arithi M'Mboroki
    [2022] eKLR
  • Julius Kibiwott Tuwei v Reuben Argut & 7 others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Margaret Ndunge Kioko v Manase Ananda Caleb
    [2021] eKLR
  • Edney Adaka Ismail v Equity Bank Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Daniel Wekesa Wanyama v Teachers Service Commission
    [2021] eKLR
  • Utalii Transport Company Limited & 3 others v NIC Bank Limited & another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Gideon Sitelu Konchella v Daima Bank Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Bilha Ngonyo Isaac v Kembu Farm Ltd & another
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the court to reinstate a suit dismissed for non-attendance

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joel v G North & Son Ltd (Cause 644 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 3442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 644 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3442/eng@2023-11-22

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