[2014] KEELRC 440 (KLR)
The Court found that it had already clarified, through rectification under Rule 33 of the Industrial Court Rules, that the 2nd Respondent (Postal Corporation of Kenya) was the employer and solely liable for the award to the Claimant. The 1st Respondent (Attorney General) did not participate in the hearing and was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 440 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Fred A. Odhiambo; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Postal Corporation of Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 312 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Termination, Employer Liability, Apportionment of Liability
- 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
Fred A. Odhiambo
Claimant
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Postal Corporation of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a legal determination on liability and apportionment between the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
- 2 Whether the Court's judgment properly identified the employer responsible for the award.
- 3 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that it had already clarified, through rectification under Rule 33 of the Industrial Court Rules, that the 2nd Respondent (Postal Corporation of Kenya) was the employer and solely liable for the award to the Claimant. The 1st Respondent (Attorney General) did not participate in the hearing and was not the employer. The Court held that its jurisdiction is limited to disputes between employees and their employers, precluding any apportionment of liability to non-employers. The grounds advanced for the intended appeal were not arguable, and there was no evidence that execution of the judgment would render the appeal nugatory. Therefore, the application for stay of execution...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 312 OF 2010
FRED A. ODHIAMBO………......….....................................…..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ….............……….1ST RESPONDENT
POSTAL CORPORATION
OF KENYA……....…………....………..2ND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
Mr Kenneth Kiplagat for the Respondent / Applicant
Mr. Oyuke for the Claimant / Respondent
RULING
1. The Applicant / 2nd Respondent by a notice of motion dated 3rd December 2013 seeks an order for stay of execution of the judgment and orders of the Court dated 25th October 2013 pending the hearing of the intended Appeal.
2. The Applicant filed a notice of Appeal dated 25th October 2013 on 8th November 2013. The grounds for the intended Appeal are set out in the Notice of Motion and may be summarized as follows;
There is no legal determination on the issue of liability and apportionment as between the 1st and 2nd Respondents despite the same being a central issue as per the parties pleadings and submissions before the Court.
3. In fact, this is the only issue raised against the judgment of the Court.
The Court however notes that, on 27th November 2013, prior to the filing of this application, it noted an omission on the judgment wherein it had severally referred to the ’Respondent’ when it was intended to refer to the 2nd Respondent, the employer of the Claimant.
4. In terms of Rule 33of the Industrial Court Rules 2010, the Court rectified the error on page 74 of the judgment to make it clear that the award was against the 2nd Respondent and notified the parties accordingly. This being the case, the Court notes that it has made a determination on who the employer of the Claimant was and made an award for damages against the 2nd Respondent for the unlawful termination of employment.
5. That the 1st Respondent did not participate in the hearing of this matter and it is clear from a reading of the Judgment as a whole that the employer was responsible to make good the award.
6. In terms of Section 12 of the Industrial Court Act, 2012 and the Employment Act, 2007 this Court has jurisdiction to determine disputes as between an employee and his / her employer only. It follows that no third parties may be found liable by this Court to pay compensation for unlawful termination of employment.
7. In the Court’s view the intended appeal, if based only on the grounds set out in this application is not arguable and the Claimant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his award without any further delay.
8. The 1st Respondent was not an employer of the Claimant and therefore there cannot be any legal basis for apportionment of liability as between the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The employment contract between the Claimant and 2nd Respondent was a matter of common cause.
9. In any event, it has not been submitted that the Claimant would be unable to repay the proceeds of the award if the Appeal is successful. The appeal would therefore not be rendered nugatory by the execution of the judgment of this Court.
Accordingly the Application is dismissed with costs.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of May, 2014.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE