[2019] KEELRC 901 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks the power to set aside or review a ruling delivered by another judge of coordinate jurisdiction. The Claimant, if dissatisfied with the ruling, should have pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than seeking to re-open the matter before the same court. The application was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 901 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Boniface Inondi Otieno; Respondent: Mehta Electricals Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 620 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Setting Aside Judgment, Limitation of Actions, 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
Boniface Inondi Otieno
Applicant
Mehta Electricals Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to set aside a ruling delivered by another judge of coordinate jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the ruling delivered on 25th November 2016 can be re-opened and set aside as a nullity.
- 3 Whether the Claimant's application meets the threshold for setting aside a court ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacks the power to set aside or review a ruling delivered by another judge of coordinate jurisdiction. The Claimant, if dissatisfied with the ruling, should have pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than seeking to re-open the matter before the same court. The application was therefore found to be without merit and was dismissed. The court further affirmed that the original ruling, which found the suit time-barred and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, was properly made and could not be revisited at this level.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Claimant's application dated 13th June 2018 and amended on 21st February 2019 is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 620 OF 2016
BONIFACE INONDI OTIENO....................................................CLAIMANT
VS
MEHTA ELECTRICALS LIMITED.......................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling relates to the Claimant’s application dated 13th June 2018 and amended on 21st February 2019, the Claimant seeks the following orders:
a) That the Court be pleased to re-open and re-examine its judgment and order made on 25th November 2016;
b) That the said judgment and order be declared a nullity and be set aside.
2. Although the Claimant’s application refers to a judgment of 25th November 2016, a perusal of the court record reveals that what was delivered on that day was a ruling pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent.
3. In the said ruling, my brother, Makau J stated the following:
“it is obvious that the claimant’s case which is founded on both contract and tort is time barred because it was commenced 10 years after the respective cause of action arose. The court is therefore barred by the Law from entertaining this suit and I therefore down my tools for lack of jurisdiction.”
4. The Claimant wants me to set aside the ruling by my brother Judge. I have no power to do so; if the Claimant was dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, he should have moved to the Court of Appeal.
5. That said, I find and hold that the Claimant’s application is without merit and proceed to dismiss it with no order for costs.
6. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019.
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Boniface Inondi Otieno (the Claimant in person)
No appearance for the Respondent