[2016] KEELRC 1585 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1585 (KLR)

The Court found that the preliminary objection filed by the Attorney General had not been prosecuted and its continued pendency was contrary to the objectives of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which is to ensure expeditious resolution of employment disputes. The Court emphasized that preliminary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1585 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Njoroge; Respondent: Barclays Bank Ltd; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 637 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Malicious Prosecution Claims, Special Damages, Preliminary Objection Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Jurisdiction of Court Malicious Prosecution Claims Special Damages Preliminary Objection Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Njoroge

Claimant

Barclays Bank Ltd

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for damages for malicious prosecution within an employment dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection filed by the Attorney General should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the preliminary objection filed by the Attorney General had not been prosecuted and its continued pendency was contrary to the objectives of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which is to ensure expeditious resolution of employment disputes. The Court emphasized that preliminary objections should not be left unresolved for extended periods as this causes unnecessary delay in the determination of the substantive dispute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the parties to take steps to prepare the matter for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by the Attorney General is dismissed.
  • Parties are directed to file witness statements, any further documents, and agreed issues before 1 April 2016 to enable the Cause to be fixed for hearing on the merits.