[2018] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent failed to establish that the claim was res judicata. There was no evidence of a final and binding decision by any court on the same issues between the same parties or their proxies. The previous cause cited by the Respondent had not been heard or determined, and the Claimant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Ali Abubakr Ali; Respondent: Central Electrical International Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 457 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection rejected
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Termination of Employment, Preliminary Objection
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ali Abubakr Ali
Claimant
Central Electrical International Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- 2 Whether the issues and parties in the previous and current claims are the same.
- 3 Whether there has been a final determination on the same issues between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent failed to establish that the claim was res judicata. There was no evidence of a final and binding decision by any court on the same issues between the same parties or their proxies. The previous cause cited by the Respondent had not been heard or determined, and the Claimant's name did not appear among the grievants in the earlier claim. Furthermore, the issues in the previous claim related to a Recognition Agreement and predated the Claimant's termination. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable, and the preliminary objection was rejected.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection rejected
Orders
- The preliminary objection is rejected.
- Parties to fix the claim for substantive hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 457 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ALI ABUBAKR ALI ........................................................................ CLAIMANT
VERSUS
CENTRAL ELECTRICAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ... RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant filed his Statement of Claim, on 14th June 2016. He states he was employed by the Respondent in the year 2009 as an Electrician. He avers his contract was terminated unfairly by the Respondent, on or about 30th August 2014. He prays for compensation and terminal benefits.
2. The Respondent filed its Statement of Response on 10th November 2016 denying to have terminated Claimant’s contract unfairly. The Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 22nd September 2017. The gist of the Objection is that the Claim is res judicata. The Amalgamated Union of Metal Workers filed Cause Number 148 of 2013 at Mombasa on behalf of its Members, against the Respondent herein. The Claimant was one of the Members on whose behalf the Cause Number 148 of 2013 was filed. This Cause was consolidated with Cause Number 430 of 2014 at Mombasa, and transferred to Nairobi, where it was registered as Cause Number 1618 of 2014. The Cause has not been heard. The Objection is based on the Affidavit of Mohammed Hamza, Respondent’s Branch Manager. The Respondent submits that the Claim herein is therefore res judicata.
3. The Claimant submits that the Respondent has not established that the Claim is res judicata. It has not been shown that the Parties and Issues in the Claims are similar. Cause Number 148 of 2013 was filed in the year 2013. The Claimant states his dismissal occurred in 2014. The issues are not similar. The former Claim was about Recognition Agreement between the Union and the Respondent. The Pleadings under Cause Number 1618 of 2014 at Nairobi have not been displayed in the Respondent’s Affidavit is support of Objection. There is no Order or Judgment showing the Court has made a determination on the same issues, between the same Parties.
The Court Finds:-
4. The Respondent has not established that the Claim herein is res judicata. There is no decision from any Court exhibited to the Court by the Respondent, showing that there is a binding and final determination made, relating to the same issues, between the Parties herein, or between the Parties’ proxies. The Respondent states that the Claim in Nairobi is in the course of being heard. How then is the Claim res judicata, even assuming the Parties in the various Claims are the same or similar? There is no determination made on any issue by any Court.
5. The Memorandum of Claim in Cause Number 148 of 2013, at paragraph 4. 5 lists the names of the Grievants on whose behalf the Claim was filed. The list does not include the Claimant’s name. His Claim is based on termination of employment which took place in 2014. Cause Number 148 was filed before termination, in 2013. IT IS ORDERED:-
a) Preliminary Objection is rejected.
b) Parties to fix the Claim for substantive hearing.
c) Costs in the Cause.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 11th day of July, 2018.
James Rika
Judge