[2024] KEELRC 357 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 357 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant's motion was procedurally defective as it was not anchored on any substantive suit, contrary to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. Furthermore, the application was filed more than four years after the orders sought to be reviewed, exceeding the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 357 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: London Distillers (K) Limited; Respondent: Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
CBA 257 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Set Aside CBA Registration
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Collective Bargaining Agreements, Court Procedure, Limitation Periods, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Collective Bargaining Agreements Court Procedure Limitation Periods Review of Court Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Distillers (K) Limited

Applicant

Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Set Aside CBA Registration

  1. 1 Whether the application to review and set aside the registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was properly before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the application was filed within the prescribed limitation period for employment disputes.
  3. 3 Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process due to procedural defects and delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's motion was procedurally defective as it was not anchored on any substantive suit, contrary to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. Furthermore, the application was filed more than four years after the orders sought to be reviewed, exceeding the three-year limitation period for employment disputes under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court found that the delay was inordinate and that the application constituted an abuse of court process. Consequently, the preliminary objection by the respondent was upheld, and the application was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application dated 22/2/2022 is struck out for being an abuse of court process and for inordinate delay.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondent.