[2024] KEELRC 2411 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent/applicant's interlocutory application had been overtaken by events following the applicant's resignation from employment. Since the applicant was no longer an employee, the reliefs sought in the application were rendered moot. The court accepted the withdrawal of the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2411 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josyline Kanake; Respondent: Kenya Film Commission; Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Film Commission
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E014 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Respondent/applicant's application dated 16th October 2023 withdrawn; each party to bear its own costs; substantive judicial review application remains pending.
- Judges
- AN Mwaure
- Legal Topics
- Resignation of Employee, Withdrawal of Application, Costs of Proceedings
- 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
Josyline Kanake
Applicant
Kenya Film Commission
Respondent
Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Film Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interlocutory application by the respondent/applicant should be withdrawn following the applicant's resignation.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to any party upon withdrawal of the application.
- 3 Whether the substantive judicial review application remains pending after the withdrawal of the interlocutory application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent/applicant's interlocutory application had been overtaken by events following the applicant's resignation from employment. Since the applicant was no longer an employee, the reliefs sought in the application were rendered moot. The court accepted the withdrawal of the application and found no justification to proceed further with it. On the issue of costs, the court held that since the withdrawal was necessitated by the applicant's resignation, which was not contested, it was fair and just for each party to bear its own costs. The court also clarified that the substantive judicial review application remained pending and could be mentioned for further...
Court Disposition
Respondent/applicant's application dated 16th October 2023 withdrawn; each party to bear its own costs; substantive judicial review application remains pending.
Orders
- The respondent/applicant's application dated 16th October 2023 is hereby withdrawn.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Kanake v Kenya Film Commission & another (Judicial Review E014 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2411 (KLR) (27 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2411 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Judicial Review E014 of 2023
AN Mwaure, J
September 27, 2024
Between
Josyline Kanake
Petitioner
and
Kenya Film Commission
1st Respondent
Chief Executive Officer
2nd Respondent
Ruling
Introduction 1. The respondent/applicant Kenya Film Commission and another filed a notice of motion application dated 16th October 2023 seeking for the following prayers:1. That due to the urgency hereof, service of this application be dispensed with, the same be certified urgent and be herd ex parte in the first instance.2. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order staying the ruling delivered on 9th august, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties.3. That this honourable court be pleased to discharge/vary/set aside the ruling delivered on 9th August, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion dated 13th April, 2023. 4.That this honourable court be pleased to stay the proceedings until such time the board of directors in place reviews and makes a determination in the applicants interdiction/show cause.5. The costs of this applicant be provided for.
2. The respondent in the application who is the applicant in the Judicial review application filed a replying affidavit dated 16th November 2023.
3. The ruling of the above application by the respondent/applicant dated 16th October 2023 was given a ruling dated scheduled for 1st March 2024.
4. In the meantime the court was notified by the respondent/applicant that the applicant Josyline Kanake tendered a resignation from the respondents employment by a letter of resignation dated 22nd January 2024. The said resignation letter was accepted by the respondent by their letter dated 23rd January 2024. The final working day was 22nd February 2024.
5. On 22nd February 2024 the respondent made an oral application in court to withdraw his application as it was no longer necessary since it was overtaken by events after the applicant tendered her resignation.
6. However the respondent opposed the said application to withdraw the respondents/applicant’s application and also indicated he was not aware the applicant (her client) had tendered a resignation. He also indicated he was entitled to his costs.
7. The court has been furnished with evidence that the applicant tendered her resignation. The court sees no reason to proceed with the application which is already overtaken by events. The applicant has not denied that she tendered her resignation. The respondent/applicant did apply to withdraw the application.
8. In view of the foregoing, the court orders the respondent/applicant application dated 16th October 2023 is hereby withdrawn since the applicant is no longer an employee of the respondent.
9. The applicant did claim that the judicial review application is still pending determination.
10. The court orders that if the applicant still is bent on proceeding with the judicial review application as per the chamber summons application dated 16th October 2023 she will mention the matter before a Judge in this docket in order to be given further directions.
11. Since the respondents/applicants application was withdrawn because the same was overtaken by events after the applicant resigned from her employment it is right that each party meet their respective costs. It is so ordered.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 27TH AY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGEOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGE