[2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)

The court declined to grant the orders sought by the respondents to vacate the interim orders and strike out the suit, holding that the application raised several factual disputes that could not be resolved without oral evidence. The judge found that the issues of locus standi, jurisdiction, and alleged abuse of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Geoffrey Asanyo; Respondent: The Chairman, Board of Directors, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited; Respondent: Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2106 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Vacate Interim Orders and Strike Out Suit
Outcome
Application dismissed; main claim to proceed to hearing.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Locus Standi Jurisdiction of Employment Court Abuse of Court Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Asanyo

Claimant

The Chairman, Board of Directors, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited

Respondent

Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Vacate Interim Orders and Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has locus standi to bring the claim.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
  3. 3 Whether the suit is an abuse of the court process and brought in bad faith.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant the orders sought by the respondents to vacate the interim orders and strike out the suit, holding that the application raised several factual disputes that could not be resolved without oral evidence. The judge found that the issues of locus standi, jurisdiction, and alleged abuse of process required a full hearing where evidence could be tested. As such, the court directed that the main claim be set down for hearing on a priority basis, emphasizing that summary determination was inappropriate where material facts are contested.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; main claim to proceed to hearing.

Orders

  • The respondents' application dated 8th December 2015 is declined.
  • The main claim is to be fixed for hearing on a priority basis.