Monica Kasika v Ministry of State of Defence & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Radido Stephen
Judgment Date
October 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Monica Kasika (suing as the administrator of the estate of the late Pius Kisilu Ikuu) v. Ministry of State of Defence & The Attorney General
- Case Number: Petition No. 6 of 2016
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 29 October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Radido Stephen
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues in this case include whether the failure to pay the terminal dues of the deceased, Pius Kisilu Ikuu, constitutes a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Kenyan Constitution, and whether the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Monica Kasika, acting as the administrator of the estate of the late Pius Kisilu Ikuu, initiated legal proceedings against the Ministry of State of Defence and the Attorney General on 27 January 2016. The Petitioner's claim was based on the allegation that the Respondents failed to pay the terminal dues owed to the deceased, thereby violating his constitutional rights. The Respondents opposed the Petition and provided evidence that payments had been made to the Petitioner’s bank account.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through several stages. After the Petition was filed, the Respondents submitted a replying affidavit on 22 June 2018. Subsequently, on 5 March 2020, the Respondents filed a Motion to strike out the Petition for want of prosecution. The Motion was scheduled for hearing on 13 July 2020; however, neither party attended. The Court then directed the Respondents to effect service of the Motion upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a replying affidavit on 28 August 2020 but was again unrepresented during the hearing on 22 September 2020. The Court ordered both parties to file and exchange submissions, which occurred in late September and early October 2020. Ultimately, the Court found that the Petitioner had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the Petition.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The Court considered Articles 41 and 47 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantee the right to fair administrative action and the right to fair remuneration. The relevant procedural rules regarding the prosecution of petitions and the consequences of failing to prosecute were also examined.
- Case Law: The Court did not explicitly cite previous case law in the ruling; however, it implied that principles regarding the dismissal of cases for want of prosecution were relevant. The Court’s reasoning aligned with established legal precedents that emphasize the importance of timely prosecution of claims.
- Application: The Court concluded that the Petitioner had not adequately pursued the case, noting her failure to attend hearings and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delays. The Respondents provided evidence of payments made to the Petitioner, undermining her claim of non-payment. Consequently, the Court allowed the Motion to dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution, emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings.

6. Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Petition for want of prosecution, highlighting the Petitioner’s failure to actively pursue her claims and the Respondents’ demonstration of compliance with their obligations. This ruling reinforces the necessity for parties to diligently manage their cases within the judicial system.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as it was a ruling delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the Respondents, dismissing the Petition filed by Monica Kasika for want of prosecution. The Court's decision underscores the importance of timely action in legal proceedings and the necessity for claimants to substantiate their allegations with evidence and active engagement in the judicial process. The outcome serves as a reminder of the procedural obligations that litigants must uphold to ensure their claims are heard and adjudicated.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Monica-Kasika-v-Ministry-of-State-of-Defence--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2538_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries