[2024] KEELRC 2027 (KLR)
The court found that its ability to objectively regulate and manage the proceedings was compromised due to the parties' conduct, the existence of consent orders staying execution of its interim orders, and the pendency of appellate proceedings on contempt and salary issues. The judge determined that continuing to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2027 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel Mathenge; Plaintiff: Cleophas Omanyo; Plaintiff: Edwin Njuga; Plaintiff: Esther Mwatha; Plaintiff: Felistus Moraa; Plaintiff: Hussein Adan; Plaintiff: Isabella Kathambi; Plaintiff: Jemimah Muriuki; Plaintiff: Joram Murimi; Plaintiff: Josphat Maende; Plaintiff: Julius Ireri; Plaintiff: Kennedy Wawire; Plaintiff: Leonard Ochieng; Plaintiff: Morris Ondiek; Plaintiff: Peter Mulwa; Plaintiff: Samwel Njue; Plaintiff: Wilson Kahora; Defendant: Youth Enterprise Development Fund
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 6544 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Judicial Recusal and Case Management
- Outcome
- Judge recused; matter to be reassigned to another judge.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Case Management, Contempt of Court, Interim Orders, Appeal Stay, Voluntary Settlement
- 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
Daniel Mathenge
Plaintiff
Cleophas Omanyo
Plaintiff
Edwin Njuga
Plaintiff
Esther Mwatha
Plaintiff
Felistus Moraa
Plaintiff
Hussein Adan
Plaintiff
Isabella Kathambi
Plaintiff
Jemimah Muriuki
Plaintiff
Joram Murimi
Plaintiff
Josphat Maende
Plaintiff
Julius Ireri
Plaintiff
Kennedy Wawire
Plaintiff
Leonard Ochieng
Plaintiff
Morris Ondiek
Plaintiff
Peter Mulwa
Plaintiff
Samwel Njue
Plaintiff
Wilson Kahora
Plaintiff
Youth Enterprise Development Fund
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Judicial Recusal and Case Management
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should continue to exercise jurisdiction over the substantive dispute while appellate proceedings on contempt and salary orders are pending.
- 2 Whether the court can effectively regulate and manage its proceedings given the parties' conduct and the status of interim orders.
- 3 Whether recusal is necessary to ensure objective and fair adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its ability to objectively regulate and manage the proceedings was compromised due to the parties' conduct, the existence of consent orders staying execution of its interim orders, and the pendency of appellate proceedings on contempt and salary issues. The judge determined that continuing to preside over the substantive dispute would undermine the integrity of the process, as the court could not be certain its orders would be obeyed or that it could deliver an objective outcome. Consequently, the judge recused himself and directed that the matter be placed before the presiding judge for reassignment to another judge, ensuring impartiality and proper case management.
Court Disposition
Judge recused; matter to be reassigned to another judge.
Orders
- The undersigned Judge hereby recuses himself from hearing the Claim.
- The Claim to be placed before the presiding Judge Claims Division, for reassignment before another Hon. Judge.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
66 paragraphs
Mathenge & 16 others v Youth Enterprise Development Fund (Cause 6544 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2027 (KLR) (2 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2027 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 6544 of 2020
J Rika, J
August 2, 2024
Between
Daniel Mathenge
1st Claimant
Cleophas Omanyo
2nd Claimant
Edwin Njuga
3rd Claimant
Esther Mwatha
4th Claimant
Felistus Moraa
5th Claimant
Hussein Adan
6th Claimant
Isabella Kathambi
7th Claimant
Jemimah Muriuki
8th Claimant
Joram Murimi
9th Claimant
Josphat Maende
10th Claimant
Julius Ireri
11th Claimant
Kennedy Wawire
12th Claimant
Leonard Ochieng
13th Claimant
Morris Ondiek
14th Claimant
Peter Mulwa
15th Claimant
Samwel Njue
16th Claimant
Wilson Kahora
17th Claimant
and
Youth Enterprise Development Fund
Respondent
Ruling
1. This Court made a Ruling on 20th August 2021, directing the Respondent to revert to payment of salaries applicable to the Claimants, prior to the resolution of the Respondent’s 76th Full Board meeting.
2. The Court ordered that arrears of salaries be paid to the Claimants.
3. The Respondent’s CEO, Human Resource Manager and Payroll Officer were required to present themselves before the Court, to show cause why, they should not be punished for contempt, for failing to honour interim orders made in favour of the Claimants, on 11th December 2020.
4. The orders were challenged by the Respondent on Appeal, in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E 317 of 2021.
5. On 1st November 2021, Parties consented before the Court of Appeal that the orders made by this Court on 20th August 2021, and all consequential orders are stayed; that the Appeal is filed within 30 days of the consent; and that Parties are at liberty to proceed with the substantive Claim before the E&LRC.
6. Parties then returned to the E&LRC where the Court was informed about attempts at voluntary settlement; about reinstatement of the Claimants under their original terms and conditions of service; and about reconstitution of the Respondent’s Board, whereof one of the Claimants is said to have assumed the role of the CEO.
7. The ground appears to have shifted significantly, but voluntary settlement, has not been registered before the Court.
8. On 7th December 2023, the Claimants applied for amendment of their Claim, to reflect the new developments.
9. It was agreed that the Application is considered and determined on the strength of the Parties’ Pleadings and Submissions. The Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their Submissions at the last mention before the Court, on 25th June 2024.
The Court Finds: - 10. This Court considered the issues in dispute and gave interim orders, whose execution, the Parties consented to stay, at the Court of Appeal.
11. They have indicated that there are developments which have taken place, having an effect on the substance of the dispute, and have time and again informed the Court of their intention to settle the dispute voluntarily.
12. Rule 38 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2016, requires that the Court shall regulate and manage its own proceedings.
13. The applications made by the Parties, the orders obtained in this Court, and the orders subsequently obtained by consent at the Court of Appeal, create doubt in the mind of the Court, on its ability to continue regulating and managing its proceedings, and in the end give an objective outcome.
14. This is more so when the Court has ruled that one party has disobeyed its orders, and the Parties consequently proceeded on Appeal and consented to stay execution of those orders, and consented further, to return to this Court to prosecute the Claim.
15. How will the Trial Court Control its proceedings, if it is not certain that its orders shall be obeyed by the Parties?
16. Why did not the Parties consent before this Court on staying execution or setting aside, of its orders dated 20th August 2021? The Court must be able to control its proceedings, and determine Claims expeditiously.
17. The Court does not feel it should exercise its jurisdiction in the substantive dispute, while proceedings relating to its orders on the salaries of the Claimants, and on contempt proceedings, is the subject of appellate proceedings.
18. For these reasons, the Court shall recuse itself, and order that the Claim is placed before the presiding Judge Claims Division, for reassignment before another Judge.
It is ordered:- 149. a.The undersigned Judge hereby recuses himself from hearing the Claim.b.The Claim to be placed before the presiding Judge Claims Division, for reassignment before another Hon. Judge.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI, UNDER PRACTICE DIRECTION 6[2] OF THE ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, 2020, THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024. JAMES RIKAJUDGE