[2015] KEELRC 165 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 165 (KLR)

The court held that the orders sought by the claimant could not be granted at the interlocutory stage because doing so would require the court to take evidence and would effectively determine the main claim prematurely. Granting such relief would amount to an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 165 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Institutions Workers Union; Respondent: TNS Research International
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1894 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent; main suit to be set for hearing on priority basis
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Redundancy, Interlocutory Relief, Employee Rights
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Redundancy Interlocutory Relief Employee Rights

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

Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Institutions Workers Union

Applicant

TNS Research International

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the grievant's employment was unlawful and should be declared illegal at the interlocutory stage.
  2. 2 Whether granting the orders sought would amount to determining the main claim prematurely.
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the orders sought by the claimant could not be granted at the interlocutory stage because doing so would require the court to take evidence and would effectively determine the main claim prematurely. Granting such relief would amount to an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications are not the proper avenue for resolving substantive disputes that require evidentiary support. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent, and the main suit was directed to be set down for hearing on a priority basis.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent; main suit to be set for hearing on priority basis

Orders

  • The claimant's application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The main suit is to be listed for hearing on a priority basis.