[2014] KEELRC 773 (KLR)
The court found that the application was based on the same facts and grounds as a previous application that had already been determined by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant failed to provide any new evidence or explanation for the 15-year delay in filing the suit. As such, the matter was deemed res...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 773 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Irene Mbari Nyaga; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 56 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application struck out as res judicata
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Res Judicata, Limitation Periods
- 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
Irene Mbari Nyaga
Applicant
Hon. Attorney General on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file a suit after a delay of 15 years.
- 2 Whether the application is res judicata in light of a previous similar application decided by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was based on the same facts and grounds as a previous application that had already been determined by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant failed to provide any new evidence or explanation for the 15-year delay in filing the suit. As such, the matter was deemed res judicata, and this court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the same issues. The proper course for the applicant, if dissatisfied with the previous ruling, would have been to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court therefore struck out the application.
Court Disposition
application struck out as res judicata
Orders
- The application is struck out as res judicata with no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 56 OF 2013
IRENE MBARI NYAGA.........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS......................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant in the ex-parte Originating Summons dated 11th February, 2013 seeks an order for extention of time to file a suit against the respondent. It would appear however that a similar application based on similar facts was filed at Meru as Misc. application number 21 of 2011.
2. This application at Meru was heard and determined by Hon. Justice Makau who came to the conclusion that 15 years delay in filing a suit was inordinate and that the applicant had not offered any reasonable explanation why it took her such a long time to file her suit.
The present application before the court does not raise any new grounds or offer any new evidence why it took the applicant such a long time to file her suit.
4. The ruling by Hon. Justice Makau is by a judge of a concurrent jurisdiction and this court cannot sit on appeal over the same. The issues raised in the application are as it were res judicata and the applicant ought to have, if not satisfied with the findings of Hon. Justice Makau, appealed against the same to the Court of Appeal subject to limitation and rules of admission of the Court of Appeal.
5. The applicant may well have had a meritorious claim but a delay of 15 years is inordinate.
This court having come to the conclusion that the issues raised in the motion before this court is res judicata, proceeds to strike out the same with no orders as to costs.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nyeri this 14th day of January, 2014.
ABUODHA J. N.
JUDGE
Delivered in open Court in the presence of Applicant in person and in the presence of Mr. Muthuri for the Respondent.