[2013] KEELRC 305 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application for review, as the original cause was prosecuted by the union (KUDHEIA) on behalf of the grievant, and not by the applicant in his personal capacity. The court held that the applicant, being a stranger to the proceedings at the review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 305 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Magetogesuka; Respondent: Catering Levy Trustees
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 11 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Award
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Review of Award, Trade Union Representation
- 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
Daniel Magetogesuka
Applicant
Catering Levy Trustees
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek a review of the award in Cause 11 of 2006.
- 2 Whether the application for review discloses sufficient grounds based on new developments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application for review, as the original cause was prosecuted by the union (KUDHEIA) on behalf of the grievant, and not by the applicant in his personal capacity. The court held that the applicant, being a stranger to the proceedings at the review stage, could not purport to file and prosecute an application for review. Additionally, the application failed to clearly articulate the new developments relied upon, rendering it deficient on its face. On these grounds, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Industrial Court of Kenya
Cause 11 of 2006 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
DANIEL MAGETOGESUKA…………………………………..……………………..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
CATERING LEVY TRUSTEES……………..………………………………….….RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application for reviewed of award dated 31st October, 2012 and filed on 5th November, 2012. It seeks a review of the award in cause number 11 of 2006 and is based on section 16 of the Industrial Court Act and rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Roles, 2010.
The applicant vide a memo dated 31st October, 2012 seeks a review of the award of court in cause number 11 of 2006 and delivered on 30th May, 2008 ostensibly on new developments which he attempts to raise in the application. From the onset, it is notable that this concept of new developments is of clearly expressed in the pleadings. These lack clarity and one is of able to get the basis of the claim and application from the face of the application. On this ground alone, the application would fail.
The application raises a myriad of legal issues inhibiting its success but the most fundamental is one of locus standi. The respondent at paragraph 4 of his grounds of objection submits that the applicant does not have locus standi to commence his proceedings. I agree.
The initial cause, the subject matter of the application for review was brought to court via the applicant’s (grievant’s) union KUDHEIA. Even at the time of finalization of the suit, the union was in charge and the curt decided along way in its favour. The applicant cannot therefore purport the file and prosecution an application for review in a matter where he is technically a total stranger. Even without going into any further analysis of the matter, or even the analysis of the merits of the application, this matter must fail and I so hold.
I therefore dismiss application with costs to the respondent.
Dated signed and delivered this 7th day of May, 2013
D.K.Njagi Marete
JUDGE
Appearances
1. Claimant in person
2. Mr. Anam instructed by Odhiambo Owiti & Company Advocates for the respondent.
[if gte mso 9]><![endif]