[2018] KEELRC 91 (KLR)
The court found that each petitioner had previously filed individual suits against the respondent based on the same facts—transfer, resistance to transfer, and summary dismissal—which were all heard and determined by competent judges. The issues raised in the current petition were identical to those previously...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 91 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Barnabas Kiprono; Applicant: David Tanui; Applicant: Sammy Mwitiki; Applicant: William Metto; Applicant: Daniel Kosgei; Applicant: Peter Birir; Respondent: Kerio Valley Development Authority
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 40 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed with costs to be shared equally by the petitioners
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Summary Dismissal, Abuse of Process
- 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
Barnabas Kiprono
Applicant
David Tanui
Applicant
Sammy Mwitiki
Applicant
William Metto
Applicant
Daniel Kosgei
Applicant
Peter Birir
Applicant
Kerio Valley Development Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition is res judicata due to prior individual suits by the petitioners on the same cause of action.
- 2 Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that each petitioner had previously filed individual suits against the respondent based on the same facts—transfer, resistance to transfer, and summary dismissal—which were all heard and determined by competent judges. The issues raised in the current petition were identical to those previously adjudicated. The court held that the petition was res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the matters had already been conclusively determined. The attempt to relitigate the same issues through a consolidated petition was deemed an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized the importance of judicial finality and the need to discourage repetitive litigation...
Court Disposition
petition dismissed with costs to be shared equally by the petitioners
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
- Costs to be shared equally by the petitioners.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
PETITION NO. 40 OF 2016
(FORMALLY NAKURU E & LRC PETITION NO. 36 OF 2016)
FORMALLY ELDORET HC PETITION NO. 16 OF 2013)
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
BARNABAS KIPRONO.........................................................1ST PETITIONER
DAVID TANUI........................................................................2ND PETITIONER
SAMMY MWITIKI...............................................................3RD PETITIONER
WILLIAM METTO...............................................................4TH PETITIONER
DANIEL KOSGEI..................................................................5TH PETITIONER
PETER BIRIR........................................................................6TH PETITIONER
VERSUS
KERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...............RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. A Preliminary Objection was raised by the Respondent against the Amended Petition by the six Petitioners Barnabas Kiprono; David Tanui; Sammy Mwitiki; William Metto; Daniel Kosgei and Peter Birir.
2. The objection is to the effect that this Petition is resjudicata in that the above said Petitioners had earlier individually and separately filed suits against the Respondent, their previous employer arising from the same cause of action as pertains in this petition being transfer of the Petitioners by the Respondent from their work station; their resistance to move to the new stations and summary dismissal of the Petitioners following those events.
3. This court is satisfied that the 1st Petitioner Barnabas Kiprono filed E & LRC no. 368 of 2013 at Nakuru against the Respondent. The same was heard and determined by Justice Stephen Radido. That the 2nd Petitioner David Tanui filed E & LRC Case No. 374 of 2013 at Nakuru against the Respondent and same was heard and determined by Justice Stephen Radido.
4. Furthermore, the 3rd Petitioner Sammy Mwitiki filed E & LRC No. 370 of 2013 against the Respondent and the same was heard and determined at Nakuru. The 4th Petitioner William Metto filed Nakuru E & LRC No. 37 of 2013 against the Respondent and the same was heard and determined by Justice Stephen Radido.
5. The 5th Petitioner, Daniel Kosgei filed E & LRC No.369 of 2013 at Nakuru against the Respondent and the same was heard and determined by Justice Stephen Radido and the 6th petitioner Peter Birir filed Nakuru E & LRC No. 372 of 2013 against the Respondent and the same was heard and determined by Justice Byram Ongaya.
6. All the above suits filed by the present Petitioners against the Respondent were dismissed by E & LRC Nakuru.
7. The issues raised in this Petition were all heard and determined. This Petition is an attempt by the Petitioners to get a second bite on the cherry instead of filing Appeals against the Judgments that were not in their favour.
8. The Petition amounts to an abuse of the process of court and the court will not devolve into a futile analysis of facts and issues that are res judicata.
9. To discourage this tendency which robs the court of precious time to consider deserving matters, the Petition is dismissed with costs to be shared equally by the Petitioners.
10. In the final analysis, the Petition is dismissed with costs to be shared equally by the Petitioners.
Judgment Dated, Signed and delivered this 6th day of December, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Angu Kitigin & Company for Petitioners
Chebii & Company for Respondent Chrispo – Court Clerk