[2013] KEELRC 321 (KLR)
The court determined that although the five cases all relate to the Kiambu Branch of KUPPET, the disputes in each are separate and distinct. Consolidating or terminating them solely due to the election of new officials would risk injustice to some parties whose issues remain unresolved. Therefore, each case should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 321 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Irungu & Others; Respondent: Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1325 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Consolidation and Directions
- Outcome
- Each of the five cases to proceed independently to final conclusion; previous status quo order discharged; directions given for orderly hearing and file management.
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Disputes, Branch Elections, Case Consolidation, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Geoffrey Irungu & Others
Applicant
Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Consolidation and Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the five related cases concerning KUPPET Kiambu Branch should be consolidated or terminated in light of new branch officials.
- 2 Whether maintaining the status quo or discharging previous stay orders is appropriate to prevent conflicting judicial orders.
- 3 How to manage multiple pending applications to avoid injustice or conflicting outcomes.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that although the five cases all relate to the Kiambu Branch of KUPPET, the disputes in each are separate and distinct. Consolidating or terminating them solely due to the election of new officials would risk injustice to some parties whose issues remain unresolved. Therefore, each case should proceed independently to its final conclusion. To prevent conflicting orders, the court directed that multiple applications within the same file be heard together and discharged the previous blanket status quo order. The court further ordered that all files be securely kept and that future urgent matters be handled by the duty judge, ensuring orderly and fair resolution of all...
Court Disposition
Each of the five cases to proceed independently to final conclusion; previous status quo order discharged; directions given for orderly hearing and file management.
Orders
- Each of the five cases concerning KUPPET Kiambu Branch shall proceed to its final conclusion independently.
- Where several applications are pending in one file, they shall be fixed for hearing on the same date to avoid conflicting orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Industrial Court of Kenya
Cause 1325 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
GEOFFREY IRUNGU & OTHERS ……...………..…...............…….....…….. CLAIMANTS
-VERSUS-
KENYA UNION OF POST PRIMARY
EDUCATION TEACHERS (KUPPET) …..…………….…....….…. RESPONDENTS
RULING
The 1st Respondent appeared before me on 4th January 2013 for hearing ex-parte of their application dated 28th December 2012.
I certified the application urgent, stayed the orders of 13th November and 10th December 2012 and directed inter-partes hearing on 16th January 2013.
On 7th January 2013, Hon. Justice Nduma made an order consolidating the application with another one filed by the Claimants on 4th January 2013.
Both applications came before me for hearing on 16th January 2013.
On 16th January 2013, it was brought to my attention that there were 5 cases altogether affecting KIAMBU Branch of KUPPET which were related and that there were conflicting orders in the files. I then directed that all the files be mentioned together before one Judge with a view to making an order to resolve all the cases in an orderly manner. The mention date was fixed for 7th February 2013.
On 7th February 2013 the parties appeared before me and gave the status of all the 5 cases pending in respect of KIAMBU Branch of Kenya Union of Post Primary, Education Teachers (KUPPET). These are Cause No.1325 of 2011, 980 of 2012, 1430 of 2012, 1573 of 2012 and 2444 of 2012.
After hearing presentations by all the parties I made an order that the status quo pending in all the cases be maintained and set the case for directions on 20th February 2013.
On 20th February 2013 I again heard representations by all the parties and made the following orders:-
1. There are new officials of the branch elected pursuant to elections held on 19/1/2013.
2. Parties are directed to make submissions on why all the cases pending in Court in respect of KUPPET KIAMBU branch should not be terminated in view of the fact that there are new officials.
3. Current status quo to be maintained including the orders staying all pending orders in respect of the 5 cases before the Court.
4. Submissions to be filed by 9th April 2013.
5. Case will be mentioned on 24th April 2013 at 11. 00 a.m. for further directions.
The parties filed their submissions and when they appeared before me on 24th April 2013 I reserved ruling for today on the way forward for the cases.
I have studied the submissions and make the following orders:-
1. THATall the 5 cases have a common denominator in that they are filed in respect of KIAMBU Branch of KUPPET.
2. THAT the issues in dispute in each case are separate and distinct and merging them may result in an injustice to some of the parties. Each case should therefore proceed to its final conclusion.
3. THAT where there are several applications pending in one file they should be fixed for hearing on the same date to avoid conflicting orders being made in the same file in respect of different applications.
4. The order made on 13th March 2013 maintaining status quo and staying all pending orders is hereby discharged.
5. Having understood the position in each of the files, and in order to avoid conflicting orders being made by different judges in the 5 different files, parties are directed to fix dates for hearing of all pending matters in this Court save for matters that may be filed under certificate of urgency which would ordinarily be heard by the duty judge.
6. THATall the files herein shall be kept in the strong room.
Orders accordingly.
Read in open Court and signed on this 30th day of April2013.
HON. LADY JUSTICE MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE.
KINGORI
In the presence of:- ______________________________ for Claimant
NO APPEARANCE
______________________________ for the Respondent
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]