SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Joseph Kipchumba Tororei v Catholic Diocese of Nakuru [2022] KEELRC 389 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 389 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
389
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 389 (KLR)
Decided
31 March 2022
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabour DisputePostureAppeal from dismissal for want of prosecutionCoramDAVID NDERITU
The Notice of motion is hereby allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with no orders as to costs, and the cause shall be fixed for hearing on priority basis without further delay or unnecessary adjournments.

Facts

The Claimant filed a Notice of motion seeking reinstatement of the cause after the court dismissed it for want of prosecution. The Claimant explained the delay in prosecuting the cause due to a technical hitch in his counsel's gadgets.

Issues

  • Whether the dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution should be overturned
  • Responsibility for the delay in prosecuting the cause

Reasoning

The court dismissed the cause for want of prosecution, but the Claimant explained the delay due to a technical issue. The court considers the delay to be due to both parties and allows the reinstatement of the cause.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Notice of motion dated 26th October, 2021 is hereby allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with no orders as to costs
  • The cause shall be fixed for hearing on priority basis without further delay or unnecessary adjournments

Remedies

  • Reinstatement of the cause

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case