Kibinge v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause 843 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2570 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to reinstate a dismissed employment case because it had already heard and rejected the same explanations, leaving an appeal as the only option.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court could reopen its dismissal of the Cause for want of prosecution
The Court could not; it was functus officio having already rejected the same explanations before dismissing the Cause, and the proper remedy was an appeal.
The applicant's grounds in the Motion were that her erstwhile advocates lied that a Notice of Appointment had been filed and that she was an innocent party. The Court found these were the very same reasons earlier given from the bar at the Notice to Show Cause hearing and rejected. Having exercised its discretion and dismissed the Cause, the Court could not relook at the rejected explanations; the applicant's remedy lay in an appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court has dismissed a cause after rejecting a party's explanations at a Notice to Show Cause, the court becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the same explanations; the remedy is an appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 7 June 2024 dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and review-style jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own dismissed Cause (no specific provision cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibinge v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause 843 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2570 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 7 June 2024 (Cause dismissed on 6 June 2024 for want of prosecution). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2570/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.