[2015] KEELRC 1576 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were not parties to the suit and had not sought or obtained leave to be joined, thus lacking locus standi to seek review of the consent order. The supporting affidavit did not disclose the deponent's connection to the case, authority to act for others, or any material grounds for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 1576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Unions; Interested Party: James Muthee Ndirangu; Interested Party: Simon Maina Wanjiku; Interested Party: Paul Kipkoech Koech; Interested Party: Elijah Otieno Owach; Interested Party: Daniel O. Rakoro (t/a Rakoro & Company Advocates)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 513(N) of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Review of Orders, Locus Standi, Procedure for Review
- 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
National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees
Applicant
Registrar of Trade Unions
Respondent
James Muthee Ndirangu
Interested Party
Simon Maina Wanjiku
Interested Party
Paul Kipkoech Koech
Interested Party
Elijah Otieno Owach
Interested Party
Daniel O. Rakoro (t/a Rakoro & Company Advocates)
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to seek review of the consent order.
- 2 Whether the application for review disclosed any grounds under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010.
- 3 Whether the consent order should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were not parties to the suit and had not sought or obtained leave to be joined, thus lacking locus standi to seek review of the consent order. The supporting affidavit did not disclose the deponent's connection to the case, authority to act for others, or any material grounds for review as required by Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010. No irregularity, fraud, or mistake was demonstrated in the making of the consent order. The application was therefore without merit and constituted an abuse of the court process. The court dismissed the application with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 513(N) OF 2009
NATIONAL UNION OF WATER &
SEWERAGE EMPLOYEES ……………………........................................……….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS …………….......................................……RESPONDENT
AND
JAMES MUTHEE NDIRANGU ………...........................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
SIMON MAINA WANJIKU …………......................................…..2ND INTERESTED PARTY
PAUL KIPKOECH KOECH ……..…......................................……3RD INTERESTED PARTY
ELIJAH OTIENO OWACH ……..………...................................... 4TH INTERESTED PARTY
DANIEL O. RAKORO (t/a Rakoro & Company Advocates …5TH INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. On 30th April, 2013, a consent order was recorded by the court.
2. The consent was signed for and on behalf of the Interested Parties by Ochieng Omolo & Company Advocates, for the Claimant/Applicant; by Rakoro & Company Advocates and by Mr. William Langat, the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Respondent.
3. The effect of the consent order was to conclude all the issues in dispute in Cause No. 513(N) of 2009 and have the file closed. The consent superseded all previous orders and same were set aside.
4. On 17th February, 2014, about one year later, the 12 named Applicants, moved an Application for Review of the aforesaid consent order dated 14th February, 2014. The Application was drawn and filed by Michael Owuor & Company Advocates for the named Applicants. The Applicants are not parties to the suit and no leave was sought to have them joined in the suit to give them Locus Standi to have a consent order by the parties set aside.
5. The Memorandum for Review brought under Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act, 2011 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 is supported by an Affidavit of one Philemon Otieno Atik.
6. The said Affidavit lacks material averments in that,
the connection of the deponent to the case is not disclosed
the authority to bring the Application on behalf of 12 other Applicants is not annexed
there are no material averments in the Affidavit on the reasons why the consent order should be set aside.
not a single ground in terms of Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010, to warrant review of the consent order is disclosed on the face of the Application and in the Supporting Affidavit.
7. In the Grounds of Opposition filed on 2nd February, 2015 by M/s Beatrice Akuno, State Counsel, she states that, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the consent was irregularly drawn and signed.
8. That the Application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
9. Similarly, the Claimant’s response to the Application for Review filed on 2nd February, 2015, reiterates that Applicants have not disclosed their interest in the matter and are indeed vexatious litigants who should be punished by an award of costs.
10. Upon a careful perusal of papers filed on record, the court is satisfied that the Application for Review lacks merit at all.
11. The court upholds the aforesaid submissions by the Respondents and dismisses the Application with costs.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of April, 2015.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE