Anthony Murigi Kiarie v Bidco Oil Refineries Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Anthony Murigi Kiarie v Bidco Oil Refineries Limited [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and judgments that impact employment law.


Case Brief: Anthony Murigi Kiarie v Bidco Oil Refineries Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Anthony Murigi Kiarie v. Bidco Oil Refineries Limited
- Case Number: Cause No. 145 of 2016
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue before the court was whether to reinstate Anthony Murigi Kiarie’s suit, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution due to the claimant's absence at a scheduled court hearing.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimant, Anthony Murigi Kiarie, initiated legal proceedings against Bidco Oil Refineries Limited in 2016. The case was dismissed on 25th February 2019 due to the claimant's failure to appear in court. The claimant's counsel's clerk, Peter Ngeno, had received a Notice to Show Cause regarding the dismissal but failed to diarize the court date. The claimant asserted that he had been available for hearings and was unaware of the dismissal until later. The respondent, Bidco Oil Refineries Limited, contended that the claimant had not taken necessary steps to follow up on his case, leading to the dismissal.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Employment and Labour Relations Court, with the claimant filing a Notice of Motion on 5th December 2019 to set aside the dismissal order. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the claimant demonstrated disinterest in the case by not taking action for nine months after the dismissal. The court had to consider whether the claimant's failure to attend the hearing constituted sufficient grounds for reinstatement of the case.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the principles governing the reinstatement of suits dismissed for want of prosecution. Key statutes referenced included section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which grants the court inherent powers to ensure justice is served, and constitutional provisions under Articles 48 and 50, which guarantee the right to access justice and fair hearing.

- Case Law: The court reviewed several precedents, including *John Nahashon Mwangi v Kenya Finance Bank Limited* [2015] eKLR and *Joseph Kinyua v GO Ombachi* [2019] eKLR, which emphasized the importance of not punishing litigants for the mistakes of their counsel. The court also referenced *James Yanga Yeswa v Bob Morgan Services Limited* [2019] eKLR, which outlined principles for reinstatement, including the need for a reasonable explanation for delays.

- Application: The court assessed the claimant's claims against the respondent's arguments. It found that the claimant had not sufficiently demonstrated proactive measures to follow up on his case after the dismissal. However, the court acknowledged that the claimant's counsel admitted fault in not diarizing the court date. Ultimately, the court decided that reinstating the suit would not prejudice the respondent unduly, as they would still have the opportunity to defend the claim.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled to reinstate the claimant's suit, setting aside the dismissal order from 25th February 2019. The court mandated that the claimant pay costs to the respondent and fix the case for hearing within six months. This decision underscored the court's commitment to ensuring access to justice while balancing the interests of both parties.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion recorded in this case.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of Anthony Murigi Kiarie, reinstating his suit against Bidco Oil Refineries Limited, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing litigants access to justice, acknowledging the errors made by the claimant's counsel while ensuring that the respondent's rights were protected through the imposition of costs. This case highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain between procedural diligence and equitable access to legal recourse.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Anthony-Murigi-Kiarie-v-Bidco-Oil-Refineries-Limited-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1602_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries