Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 2785 (KLR)

Kagendo v Generic Brands Limited & another (Cause E955 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2785 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 October 2025
OMOnesmus Makau
836 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court spared an employee's lawsuit but personally fined her lawyer for repeatedly skipping pretrial conferences.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondents filed a notice of motion dated 5th August 2025 seeking dismissal of the Claimant's suit for non-appearance and want of prosecution, supported by an affidavit of the 2nd Respondent. They complained that the Claimant, though served with mention notices, failed to attend pretrial directions on 13th March, 7th May, 24th June, 15th July and 31st July 2025, and cited authority that an indolent litigant should not keep a suit pending indefinitely. The Claimant opposed through Grounds of Opposition, which the court noted improperly annexed exhibits and pleaded facts that belonged in affidavits. Counsel for the Claimant argued she was awaiting prosecution of a motion challenging the late filing of defence, and that the suit being less than a year old, the Respondents were attempting to steal a match. The court framed one issue: whether the suit should be dismissed for non-attendance at pretrial conference. It identified Rule 40(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024 as the applicable provision, distinguishing it from Rule 43's one-year want-of-prosecution rule. Finding five instances of unexplained non-attendance amounting to a clear case for dismissal, the court nonetheless declined to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice, possibly faulting counsel. Instead, it condemned the Claimant's counsel to pay the Respondent Kshs. 4,000 for four missed dates, payable within 14 days with personal execution on default, and fixed the suit for pretrial conference on 28th October 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be dismissed for the Claimant's non-attendance at pretrial conferences

Holding

Although the Claimant's repeated non-attendance warranted dismissal, the court exercised discretion in favour of the Claimant and instead condemned her counsel in compensatory costs

Reasoning

Rule 40(5) governs dismissal for failure to attend pretrial conferences, while Rule 43 governs dismissal for want of prosecution after one year. The motion fell under Rule 40(5). The record confirmed non-attendance on five dates with no plausible explanation. The court nonetheless spared the suit, attributing possible fault to counsel, and ordered the counsel to pay Kshs. 4,000 for four missed dates with liberty to execute personally on default.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 40(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024 empowers the court to fix a matter for hearing or dismiss it where a party fails to attend a pre-trial conference

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's counsel to pay the Respondent Kshs. 4,000 for the 4 days he failed to attend the pre-trial conferences
  2. 2.The said costs to be paid within 14 days, failing which the Respondent may execute against the counsel personally
  3. 3.The suit fixed for pretrial conference on 28/10/2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024, Rules 40(5) and 43

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kagendo v Generic Brands Limited & another (Cause E955 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2785 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2785/eng@2025-10-16

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