[2024] KECA 843 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 843 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants, having demonstrated advanced age and health complications, were deserving of a priority hearing for their pending appeal. The court recognized that administrative requests for a hearing date had not been addressed and that the applicants faced prejudice due to their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 843 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenyatta University; Respondent: Humprey Nyaga Thomas; Respondent: Charles Karigi Muiruri; Respondent: Jackson Makokha; Respondent: Michael Ndungu; Respondent: Joseph Muturi Mwangi; Respondent: Lawrence FN Gathenya; Respondent: Margaret Wanjiru; Respondent: Jacob Thumi; Respondent: Wakarindi Gathariki; Respondent: George Ndung’u; Respondent: Michael Kaara; Respondent: Margaret Ngunji; Respondent: Francis Libechi; Respondent: S.Indimuli A. Geoffrey; Respondent: Stephen M Numi; Respondent: Peter Irungu; Respondent: Richard Iburu; Respondent: Amos Mathenge; Respondent: Esther Njoki Mburu; Respondent: James Karanja Muturi; Respondent: Peter Ochembe; Respondent: Vincent Ngungi Chege; Respondent: Samuel W. Ngungi; Respondent: Simon M. Kigotho; Respondent: Karih Wambugu; Respondent: Agnes Kabura Ndung’u
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E494 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Motion to Fast Track Appeal
Outcome
motion allowed
Judges
S ole Kantai, JM Mativo, GWN Macharia
Legal Topics
Expedited Hearing, Appeal Management, Reinstatement of Employees, Priority Allocation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Expedited Hearing Appeal Management Reinstatement of Employees Priority Allocation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenyatta University

Applicant

Humprey Nyaga Thomas

Respondent

Charles Karigi Muiruri

Respondent

Jackson Makokha

Respondent

Michael Ndungu

Respondent

Joseph Muturi Mwangi

Respondent

Lawrence FN Gathenya

Respondent

Margaret Wanjiru

Respondent

Jacob Thumi

Respondent

Wakarindi Gathariki

Respondent

George Ndung’u

Respondent

Michael Kaara

Respondent

Margaret Ngunji

Respondent

Francis Libechi

Respondent

S.Indimuli A. Geoffrey

Respondent

Stephen M Numi

Respondent

Peter Irungu

Respondent

Richard Iburu

Respondent

Amos Mathenge

Respondent

Esther Njoki Mburu

Respondent

James Karanja Muturi

Respondent

Peter Ochembe

Respondent

Vincent Ngungi Chege

Respondent

Samuel W. Ngungi

Respondent

Simon M. Kigotho

Respondent

Karih Wambugu

Respondent

Agnes Kabura Ndung’u

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Motion to Fast Track Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the pending appeal should be fast-tracked and allocated a hearing date on a priority basis due to the applicants' advanced age and health conditions.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to administratively prioritize the hearing of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants, having demonstrated advanced age and health complications, were deserving of a priority hearing for their pending appeal. The court recognized that administrative requests for a hearing date had not been addressed and that the applicants faced prejudice due to their circumstances, including lack of income and inability to secure alternative employment. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction and in the interests of justice, the court allowed the motion, directing that the appeal file be placed before the President of the Court of Appeal for allocation of a hearing date on a priority basis. Costs of the motion were ordered to be in the appeal.

Court Disposition

motion allowed

Orders

  • The appeal file shall be placed before the President, Court of Appeal, to allocate a hearing date on the basis of priority.
  • Costs of the motion will be in the appeal.