Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 243 (KLR)

Ngunyi v Kenya Nut Company Limited (Cause 45 of 2012) [2024] KEELRC 243 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 February 2024
557 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to revive an employment claim dismissed in 2018 because the worker waited over four years without explaining the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant applied by notice dated 15th December 2022 for review of an order made by Makau J on 25th September 2018 dismissing her claim for want of prosecution, after the court declined an adjournment sought on the ground that her counsel was indisposed. The application was supported by an affidavit of the Claimant's counsel, Mildred Gakoi, contending that the dismissal was erroneous, that triable issues arose, and that no prejudice would be suffered. The Respondent opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by its counsel, Janice Akinyi, noting that the application was only served on 16th October 2023 despite its date, and that reinstatement would prejudice it as it no longer possessed the documents necessary to defend the claim. The court observed that although the Claimant's counsel gave a chronology of events, she omitted to explain the crucial delay of more than four years between the dismissal and the application, which was made in the presence of counsel for both parties. The Respondent's submissions cited Amina Karama v Njagi Gachangua & 3 others [2020] eKLR for the principle that delay defeats equity. The court held that in employment matters delay risks injustice because employment records have a limited lifespan and workplace witnesses are subject to natural attrition, and a reasonable employer would close the file and move on after dismissal. Finding the delay inordinate and unexplained, the court declined to exercise its discretion, disallowed the application, confirmed the dismissal of the claim, closed the file, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should exercise its discretion to review and reinstate a claim dismissed for want of prosecution after a delay of over four years

Holding

The application was disallowed; the delay was inordinate and unexplained and the discretion could not be exercised in the Claimant's favour

Reasoning

The claim was dismissed on 25th September 2018 in the presence of counsel for both parties. The Claimant did not explain why it took more than four years to seek reinstatement; her affidavit chronology omitted any explanation for the delay. The Respondent deponed it would be prejudiced, having lost documents needed to defend the claim. Relying on the principle that delay defeats equity, and noting that in employment matters records have a limited lifespan and witnesses succumb to natural attrition, the court found the delay inordinate and unreasonable and declined to exercise its discretion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Delay defeats equity; an unexplained lengthy delay in seeking reinstatement of a dismissed claim is inordinate and unreasonable and disentitles the applicant to the court's discretion
  • In employment matters, delay causes injustice because employment records have a limited lifespan and workplace witnesses are susceptible to natural attrition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's application dated 15th December 2022 is disallowed
  2. 2.The Claimant's claim stands dismissed and the file is closed
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Amina Karama v Njagi Gachangua & 3 others
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the court to review/set aside its orders (application for review of order of Makau J dismissing claim for want of prosecution)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngunyi v Kenya Nut Company Limited (Cause 45 of 2012) [2024] KEELRC 243 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/243/eng@2024-02-15

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