[2023] KEELRC 83 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 83 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents' application to dismiss the petition was based on grounds that had already been raised and determined in a previous application. The court had previously ruled on the merits of a similar application and dismissed it. Therefore, the present application was res judicata and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 83 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Amwoma; Respondent: Amos Kimwomi Nyaribo Governor, Nyamira County; Respondent: County Government Of Nyamira; Respondent: Nyamira County Public Service Board
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 012 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application to Dismiss
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs to be paid personally by the respondents' advocate
Judges
S Radido
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Public Service Employment, Res Judicata, Constitutional Rights Enforcement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Constitutional Law Termination of Employment Public Service Employment Res Judicata Constitutional Rights Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Amwoma

Applicant

Amos Kimwomi Nyaribo Governor, Nyamira County

Respondent

County Government Of Nyamira

Respondent

Nyamira County Public Service Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application to Dismiss

  1. 1 Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the application to dismiss the petition is res judicata.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' application to dismiss the petition was based on grounds that had already been raised and determined in a previous application. The court had previously ruled on the merits of a similar application and dismissed it. Therefore, the present application was res judicata and constituted an abuse of the court process. The court declined to revisit the issue and dismissed the motion, ordering that costs be paid personally by the respondents' advocate.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs to be paid personally by the respondents' advocate

Orders

  • The respondents' motion dated November 23, 2022 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be paid personally by the respondents' advocate on record.