[2013] KEELRC 919 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 919 (KLR)

The Court found that the Claimant, having received notification on 10th March 2010 that the intended clustering of Water Service Providers had been suspended, should have withdrawn its claim at that point as there was no longer a recognizable dispute. By persisting with the claim, the Claimant knowingly caused the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 919 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Ministry of Water and Irrigation & 9 Others
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 782(N) of 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Claim
Outcome
Claim withdrawn; costs awarded to 10th Respondent for period after 10th March 2010.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Withdrawal of Claim, Industrial Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Costs Award Withdrawal of Claim Industrial Court Discretion

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Ministry of Water and Irrigation & 9 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Claim

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should bear the costs incurred by the 10th Respondent after the suspension of the clustering program was communicated.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant acted unreasonably in continuing with the claim after being notified of the suspension.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Claimant, having received notification on 10th March 2010 that the intended clustering of Water Service Providers had been suspended, should have withdrawn its claim at that point as there was no longer a recognizable dispute. By persisting with the claim, the Claimant knowingly caused the 10th Respondent to incur unnecessary costs. The Court exercised its discretion to award costs against the Claimant for expenses incurred by the 10th Respondent after the date the Claimant received the suspension notification. The costs are to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar in the normal manner.

Court Disposition

Claim withdrawn; costs awarded to 10th Respondent for period after 10th March 2010.

Orders

  • The Claimant shall meet the costs incurred by the 10th Respondent after 10th March 2010.
  • Costs to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar in the normal manner.