Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2896 (KLR)

Kinyanjui v Rama Homes Limited (Cause E494 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2896 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 October 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
643 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 refused to reinstate a dismissed suit because the applicant's explanation was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, sending each party away without costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by an application dated 27th August 2024 seeking to set aside orders dismissing the suit for want of prosecution on 22nd January 2024, to reinstate the suit for hearing on merit, and to have the firm of MGM LLP Advocates come on record in place of Morgan Omusundi Law Firm. The dismissal followed the non-appearance of the Claimant's advocate at a mention, which the applicant attributed to misplacement of its file following relocation of its offices from Delamere Flats, Upper Hill. The Respondent opposed the application, contending that the absence on a critical date amounted to misconduct and negligence; that the claim of a lost file was an afterthought, particularly as the applicant was mapped on the Case Tracking System with visible dates; that the application was served on the wrong advocates' email address, with no affidavit of service on the correct party initially; and that terminal dues had already been paid to the claimant as agreed in 2020, making reinstatement prejudicial. In a brief ruling, the court found the suit had been dismally prosecuted and that the application and supporting evidence were riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods that would not stand the test of accuracy and truthfulness. The court dismissed the application with an order that each party bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution should be set aside

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicant's explanation was untrustworthy and the suit had been dismally prosecuted

Reasoning

The suit was dismissed on 22nd January 2024 for the claimant's advocate's non-appearance at a mention. The applicant blamed misplacement of its file following relocation of offices. The court found the application and supporting evidence riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, including failure to serve the Respondent's correct advocates on record, and concluded the application could not stand the test of accuracy and truthfulness.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution founded on inconsistencies and falsehoods will be dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the application dated 27th August 2024
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the court to set aside orders dismissing a suit for want of prosecution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kinyanjui v Rama Homes Limited (Cause E494 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2896 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2896/eng@2025-10-22

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