[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notification on 10th March 2010 that the intended clustering of Water Service Providers had been suspended, should have withdrawn its claim at that point as there was no longer a recognizable dispute.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- Claim withdrawn; costs awarded to 10th Respondent for period after 10th March 2010.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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant should bear the costs incurred by the 10th Respondent after the suspension of the clustering program was communicated.
- 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notification on 10th March 2010 that the intended clustering of Water Service Providers had been suspended, should have withdrawn its claim at that point as there was no longer a recognizable dispute.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Claim withdrawn; costs awarded to 10th Respondent for period after 10th March 2010.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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 782(N) OF 2009
KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL
FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION.....................................CLAIMANT
VS
MINISTRY OF WATER AND IRRIGATION & 9 OTHERS..........RESPONDENTS
RULING
Introduction
1. On 6th May 2013, the Claimant withdrew its claim against the Respondents on the ground that it had been overtaken by events. Counsel for the 10th Respondent did not object to withdrawal of the claim but sought to be awarded costs. It was therefore agreed by consent that the parties would file written submissions on the basis of which the Court would make a determination on the issue of costs.
Submissions by the 10th Respondent
2. In the written submissions filed by the 10th Respondent on 17th July 2013, it was submitted that the Claimant's claim was premised on an intended clustering of Water Service Providers which would affect the Claimant's members. The intended clustering was however suspended in December 2009. This information was confirmed by letter dated 16th March 2010 from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Water and Irrigation addressed to the Chief Industrial Relations Officer and copied to the Claimant. The letter was received by the Claimant on 26th March 2010.
3. However and in spite of this information, the Claimant insisted on proceeding with its claim, prompting the 10th Respondent to file a Memorandum of Reply on 24th May 2010. It was the 10th Respondent's submission that the Claimant's claim was an act of activism and did not disclose any recognizable dispute. Further, the Claimant kept the true position on the matter from the Court and caused several court attendances and meetings at the Ministry's offices where the 10th Respondent was represented by Counsel, thus incurring unnecessary costs.
Submissions by the Claimant
4. In response, the Claimant submitted that it came to Court for valid reasons and was granted interim orders by the Court. The Claimant further submitted that the Industrial Court is a court of equity for settling of employment and industrial relations disputes. The Claimant gave the reason for withdrawal of the claim as delay by the Conciliator in filing his report. The notification of suspension of the clustering program was received by the Claimant after it had filed its claim.
Ruling by the Court
5. Section 12(4) of the Industrial Court Act, 2011 provides that:
“In proceedings under this Act, the Court may, subject to the rules make such orders as to costs as the Court considers just.”
6. Rule 27(1) (e) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 provides:
“Provided that subject to these Rules and any other written law, the Court may at any time in the conduct of proceedings issue-
(e) an order for costs”
7. Clearly, the award of costs in proceedings before the Industrial Court is discretionary but discretion must be exercised judiciously and the Court must always bear in mind what is just in each case.
8. The Claimant filed its claim on 10th December 2009 and obtained a temporary order on 16th February 2010. Subsequently, by letter dated 5th March 2010 and received by the Claimant on 10th March 2010, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Water and Irrigation notified the Claimant that the clustering of Water Service Providers had been suspended until further notice.
9. In my view, the Claimant should have withdrawn its claim at this stage since there was no longer a recognizable dispute pending for determination. In the circumstances, I find that the Claimant knowingly caused the 10th Respondent to incur unnecessary costs. I therefore direct that the Claimant will meet the costs incurred by the 10th Respondent after 10th March 2010 when the Claimant received the first communication that the intended clustering had been suspended. The costs will be assessed by the Deputy Registrar in the normal manner.
Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
..................................................................................................Claimant
..............................................................................................Respondent