Gekone v Nine One One Group Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E235 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 373 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court reinstated a worker's dismissed case, but ordered him to pay the employer Ksh. 25,000 quickly or lose the case again.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant has satisfied the legal and equitable principles governing reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant satisfied the principles for reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance
The application satisfied the threshold: the suit was filed promptly after dismissal, the suit was meritorious, and the respondent's alleged prejudice was compensable by damages; reinstatement was granted on conditional throw-away costs.
The court framed the single issue as whether the claimant demonstrated good cause under Rule 22(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and the James Kanyiita Nderitu principles. Although the claim that former counsel's indisposition caused non-attendance was unsupported by evidence, the court found the application was filed promptly, slightly over two months after dismissal, and that the suit had merit. The respondent's claim of lost witnesses and impaired defence could be compensated by damages. In the interests of justice, reinstatement was granted, conditioned on payment of Ksh. 25,000 throw-away costs within 30 days, failing which the dismissal automatically revives.
Legal principles established
#- The legal threshold for saving a suit from dismissal for non-attendance is demonstration of good cause by the applicant.
- To reinstate a suit dismissed for non-attendance, the applicant must show non-attendance was inadvertent, the application was made without unreasonable delay, the suit is meritorious, and greater prejudice would be suffered if denied.
- Prejudice to a respondent can be compensated by damages and does not by itself defeat reinstatement in the interests of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit dismissed on 11/12/2024 is reinstated
- 2.Throw away costs in the sum of Ksh. 25,000 to be paid to the Respondent within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the dismissal orders shall stand reinstated automatically
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 4.Matter to be mentioned before CM-CT 1 on 20/08/26 for reallocation/further directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 2A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The issue for determination herein is whether the claimant has satisfied the legal and equitable principles governing reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-attendance.
The legal threshold for saving a suit from dismissal for non-attendance is demonstration of good cause by the applicant as provided for under Rule 22(2) of the Employment and Labor Relations Court (procedure) Rules.
Thus, considering the findings above and in the interests of justice, I am inclined to grant reinstatement of the suit dismissed on 11/12/2024. Throw away costs in the sum of Ksh. 25, 000 to be paid upon the Respondent within 30 days from the date hereof, failure to which the dismissal orders shall stand reinstated automatically.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is undated on its face regarding the case number and lacks a stated case number; the parties' full names (other than Kepha Oromo and Nelly Mulewa) are not given.
The delivery date reads 29th July 2026 while the proceedings record mentions directions on 20/08/26; the respondent alleged the application was filed in March 2025 despite being dated 30/01/25, raising a backdating concern the court did not resolve.
The court found no evidence of counsel's indisposition yet still exercised discretion in the applicant's favour, an apparent tension in its own reasoning on the 'inadvertence' criterion.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gekone v Nine One One Group Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E235 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 373 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/373/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.