[2017] KEELRC 22 (KLR)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to settle the terms of the decree because the Claimants had already filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2014) which was still pending before the Court of Appeal. The pendency of the appeal meant that the appellate court was seized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 22 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Mwangi Gioko & 50 Others; Respondent: Nairobi City & Water Sewerage
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1722 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Reference for Settlement of Decree Terms
- Outcome
- reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Pending Appeal, Settlement of Decree, Costs Award
- 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
David Mwangi Gioko & 50 Others
Applicant
Nairobi City & Water Sewerage
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Reference for Settlement of Decree Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to settle the terms of the decree while an appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the reference by the Claimants is properly before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment and Labour Relations Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to settle the terms of the decree because the Claimants had already filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2014) which was still pending before the Court of Appeal. The pendency of the appeal meant that the appellate court was seized of the matter, and any further proceedings in the lower court regarding the same subject matter would be improper. Consequently, the court dismissed the Claimants' reference with costs to the Respondent.
Court Disposition
reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- The reference by the Claimants is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1722 OF 2011
DAVID MWANGI GIOKO & 50 OTHERS......................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
NAIROBI CITY & WATER SEWERAGE....................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimants’ have sought the settling of the terms of the decree of this court. The Respondent is opposed and filed a replying affidavit sworn by Judy Gitaari the Legal Coordinator of the Respondent. It is clear that the court (Rika J.) awarded some relief to the Claimants on 28th January 2014. The Claimants preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2014 before the Court of Appeal. That appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeal and it is the Appellants (Claimants) who instigated the appeal. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it as the Court of Appeal is seized of the case. In the premises I will dismiss the reference to court by the Claimants herein with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of December 2017
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE