[2006] KEHC 2424 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were not guilty of material non-disclosure. The applicants provided prima facie satisfactory explanations to each challenge raised by the respondents, including the use of pay-slips, payroll, and the alleged exclusion of employees and departments. The court emphasized that, at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2424 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Njoroge Gachukia; Applicant: Romanous Kweyu Osere; Applicant: Samuel Mugweru; Applicant: Benson Oliang’a Oriaro; Applicant: John Benard Muriuki Kimaru; Applicant: Monica Wangari; Applicant: Pamela Achieng Osee; Applicant: Jacinta W. Wanjohi; Respondent: James Kamanu; Respondent: Joel Indakwa Adala; Respondent: Benjamin N. Nyaga; Respondent: Michael Mutua Nzau; Respondent: Peter Mega; Respondent: Samuel Maina; Respondent: Michael Oloo Ohomo; Respondent: Andrew Oketch Ondoro; Respondent: The Registrar of Trade Unions; Respondent: The Provincial Labour Officer Nairobi; Respondent: The District Labour Officer Industrial Area Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous 162 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Leave and Stay Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JW Nyamu
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Trade Union Registration, Material Non Disclosure
- 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
Francis Njoroge Gachukia
Applicant
Romanous Kweyu Osere
Applicant
Samuel Mugweru
Applicant
Benson Oliang’a Oriaro
Applicant
John Benard Muriuki Kimaru
Applicant
Monica Wangari
Applicant
Pamela Achieng Osee
Applicant
Jacinta W. Wanjohi
Applicant
James Kamanu
Respondent
Joel Indakwa Adala
Respondent
Benjamin N. Nyaga
Respondent
Michael Mutua Nzau
Respondent
Peter Mega
Respondent
Samuel Maina
Respondent
Michael Oloo Ohomo
Respondent
Andrew Oketch Ondoro
Respondent
The Registrar of Trade Unions
Respondent
The Provincial Labour Officer Nairobi
Respondent
The District Labour Officer Industrial Area Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Leave and Stay Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were guilty of material non-disclosure in obtaining ex-parte orders.
- 2 Whether the ex-parte order for leave and stay should be set aside due to alleged non-disclosure.
- 3 Whether the applicants excluded relevant employees and departments in their application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were not guilty of material non-disclosure. The applicants provided prima facie satisfactory explanations to each challenge raised by the respondents, including the use of pay-slips, payroll, and the alleged exclusion of employees and departments. The court emphasized that, at this interlocutory stage, it was prudent to refrain from making detailed findings on contested issues to avoid prejudicing the substantive hearing. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex-parte order for leave and stay was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to set aside the ex-parte order for leave and stay is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Civ Appli 162 of 2006
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS
CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE UNION ACT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKERS UNION NAIROBI MANUAL BRANCH
FRANCIS NJOROGE GACHUKIA
ROMANOUS KWEYU OSERE
SAMUEL MUGWERU
BENSON OLIANG’A ORIARO
JOHN BENARD MURIUKI KIMARU
MONICA WANGARI
PAMELA ACHIENG OSEE
JACINTA W. WANJOHI .............................................................. APPLICANTS/INTERESTED PARTIES
VERSUS
JAMES KAMANU ......................................................................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT
JOEL INDAKWA ADALA .......................................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT
BENJAMIN N. NYAGA .............................................................................................. 3RD RESPONDENT
MICHAEL MUTUA NZAU ......................................................................................... 4TH RESPONDENT
PETER MEGA ............................................................................................................ 5TH RESPONDENT
SAMUEL MAINA ....................................................................................................... 6TH RESPONDENT
MICHAEL OLOO OHOMO ...................................................................................... 7TH RESPONDENT
ANDREW OKETCH ONDORO ............................................................................. 8TH RESPONDENT
AND
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS .............................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT
THE PROVINCIAL LABOUR OFFICER NAIROBI ........................................... 2ND RESPONDENT
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER INDUSTRIAL AREA NAIROBI ........... 3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
The application dated 10th April 2006 seeks to set aside the ex-parte order for leave and stay granted by me on 30th March 2006 on the grounds that the applicants are guilty of material non disclosure concerning the use of the pay-slips and the payroll including the alleged exclusion of about 1500 employees of the water company. It was also alleged that the applicant did not include at least three departments of the City Council out of the 13 known departments. It is further contended that most of the results were countersigned by the candidates agents.
I have considered the affidavits in support and the affidavit in reply including the annextures.
After putting all this in the balance and also the submission of the learned counsel I find and hold that the applicants are not guilty of any material nondisclosure. The applicants have offered on a prima facie basis satisfactory explanation to each challenge. At this stage it is safe for me to say as little as possible on each contention issue so as not to compromise the hearing on merit.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
Costs shall be in the cause.
DATED and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of May 2006.
J.G. NYAMU
JUDGE