REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT

AT NAKURU

ELRC CAUSE NUMBER 387 OF 2015

JANE  WAMBUI  KIBE................................................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

CHRIST THE KING PARISH NAKURU......................................................1^ST  RESPONDENT

CATHOLIC DOECESE OF NAKURU...........................................................2^ND RESPONDENT

(BEFORE HON. JUSTICE DAVID NDERITU)

RULING

1.  INTRODUCTION

1.   In a Notice of Motion dated 26^th October, 2021 the  Claimant is seeking for the setting aside of this court’s  orders made on 13^th October, 2021 dismissing this cause   for want of prosecution.  The said application is supported  by the affidavit of JANE WAMBUI KIBE, the Claimant,  sworn on 26^th October, 2021.  There is a further supporting    affidavit of ELIJAH MARAGIA OGARO, Advocate for   the   Claimant sworn on 26^th October, 2021. There are several annextures to the two affidavits.

2.   The Respondents are opposed to the application by way of  an affidavit sworn by GIDEON GICUHI NDUNG’U, a   legal officer of the Respondent.

3.   The Claimant swore a supplementary affidavit on 7^th  December, 2021 and the same was filed on record.

4.   On 31^st January, 2022 Counsel for both parties highlighted   their  respective positions and it was left to this court to write and deliver a ruling based on the brief oral submissions by   Counsel for both parties and the affidavits   filed by the parties.

II.   THE LAW

5.   Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as   follows:-

“(1) In any suit in which no application has been  made or step taken by either party for one  year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should   not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to   its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.

(2)    If cause is shown to the satisfaction of the  court it may make such orders as it thinks fit   to obtain expeditious hearing of the suit.

(3)    Any party to the suit may apply for its dismissal as provided in sub-rule 1.

(4)    The court may dismiss the suit for non- compliance with any direction given under  this order.”

6.  The above provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules are  echoed in Rule 16(1) of the Employment and Labour  Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 which         provides:-

“In any suit in which no application has been made in accordance with Rule 15 or no action has been taken by either party within one year from the date of its filing, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed and if no reasonable cause is shown to it satisfaction may dismiss the suit.”

7.    It is on the basis of the above laws that this court issued a Notice to show cause (NTSC) dated 24^th September,  2021 which came up for hearing on 12^th October, 2021. The   Claimant was not represented during the hearing and  this court proceeded to dismiss the cause for want of  prosecution with no orders as to costs.

8.    It is as a consequence of that dismissal that the Claimant is  now seeking reinstatement of the cause.

III.   ARGUMENTS

9.   This court has dutifully gone through the Notice of motion  dated 26^th October, 2021 (which does not indicate the  provisions of the law relied upon) and all the materials  placed before this court in respect thereof.

10. The Claimant’s counsel in his affidavit has expressed that  he failed to attend the hearing of the NTSC due to   technical issues in his gadgets and that there was a          breakdown in communication about the link that this court  was using on that day for the virtual court.

11.  The mistake of Counsel may not be visited upon an  otherwise innocent litigant.  However, while there may  be a reasonable explanation as to why counsel for the   Claimant failed to attend the virtual court on 12^th October,  2021, there is no plausible, logical, or reasonable  explanation why this matter had not been prosecuted prior to the suo motto issuance of the NTSC by the court.

12.    It is also important to note that the Respondents are  equally to blame for the delay in the prosecution or  dismissal of this cause.  Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure rules and Rule 16 (1) of the Employment  and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016  clearly give either party to cause the leeway to either fix  the cause for hearing or to take such other steps as to   enable an efficient, just, fair, and, expedient disposal of   the same.

13.   The Respondents did not take any steps in prosecuting or  applying for dismissal of the cause and only came along in  support of the dismissal after the court issued a NTSC for   dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution,  suo motto.

IV.    DISPOSAL

14.    It is by now clear that both sides are to blame for the delay  in disposal of this cause.  The court holds that there is no reasonable or justifiable explanation given for the delay from either party.

15.   Litigants engage Counsel for professional help in   navigating the tricky and at times confusing arena of   litigation.  Often Counsel fail in their duties to advise their clients appropriately.  There is no way for this court to  ascertain that the Claimant knew that the prolonged delay in prosecuting her cause could lead to dismissal of the  same for want of prosecution.  There is also no way of  ascertaining that the Respondents knew that they could   have applied for the dismissal of this cause for the prolonged delay in prosecution of the same.  The parties  rely on their Counsel for advice and direction.  This court  is not sure if Counsel properly advised their respective  clients in this cause.

16.   As much as there are no reasons given for the prolonged  delay in prosecuting this cause on the one hand, and there   has been failure to apply for dismissal of the same on the   other hand, this court is of the view that the Claimant may  be given a last opportunity to prosecute this cause.

17.   This court reluctantly grants the Claimant a last chance to   prosecute this cause on priority basis, purely and entirely     in the interest of justice based on Sections 1A, 1B, 3, and   3A of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3 of the  Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, among others.

18.   In effect therefore, the Notice of motion dated 26^th  October, 2021 is reluctantly allowed in terms of prayers (a)  and (b) with costs in the cause.

19.  This cause shall now be allocated a hearing date to proceed without any further delay.

DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 31^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022.

...............................

DAVID NDERITU

JUDGE