[2018] KEELRC 143 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 143 (KLR)

The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that, following the Court of Appeal's ruling staying execution of its judgment, it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain further applications in the matter. The court held that it was functus officio and declined to consider the merits of the applicant's request for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 143 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Juliet Indetie; Respondent: Elijah Chingosho; Respondent: African Airlines Association (AFRAA)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 16 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction (functus officio)
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Employment, Contempt of Court, Injunctive Relief, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Reinstatement of Employment Contempt of Court Injunctive Relief Functus Officio

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliet Indetie

Applicant

Elijah Chingosho

Respondent

African Airlines Association (AFRAA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant injunctive relief restraining the respondents from advertising or recruiting for the disputed position pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' actions amount to contempt of court for disobeying a decree of reinstatement.
  3. 3 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court retains jurisdiction after the Court of Appeal has issued a stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that, following the Court of Appeal's ruling staying execution of its judgment, it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain further applications in the matter. The court held that it was functus officio and declined to consider the merits of the applicant's request for injunctive relief or to deliberate on the alleged contempt. The court emphasized that the appellate court was now seized of the matter, and any further relief or directions must be sought from the Court of Appeal. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of jurisdiction (functus officio)

Orders

  • The court declines to entertain the application as it is functus officio.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.