[2025] KEELRC 1894 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 1894 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd respondent's application was improperly brought after the preliminary objection had been declined and directions for hearing had already been issued. The respondent's counsel was present in court when directions were given but did not seek a stay of proceedings or indicate any intention...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1894 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Susan Adhiambo Ogol; Applicant: Maureen Kwamboka Odhiambo; Respondent: Badar Hardware Ltd; Respondent: Takaful Insurance of africa
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E116 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application struck out as abuse of court process
Judges
K Ocharo
Legal Topics
Misjoinder of Parties, Preliminary Objection, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Misjoinder of Parties Preliminary Objection Abuse of Court Process

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Adhiambo Ogol

Applicant

Maureen Kwamboka Odhiambo

Applicant

Badar Hardware Ltd

Respondent

Takaful Insurance of africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application by the 2nd respondent should be entertained after the preliminary objection was declined.
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
  3. 3 Whether the issue of misjoinder should be determined at this stage or at judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd respondent's application was improperly brought after the preliminary objection had been declined and directions for hearing had already been issued. The respondent's counsel was present in court when directions were given but did not seek a stay of proceedings or indicate any intention to file such an application. The court held that the issue of misjoinder could be addressed at the judgment stage and that the application amounted to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was struck out in furtherance of the court's overriding objective to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Court Disposition

application struck out as abuse of court process

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent's application is struck out.
  • The matter shall proceed to hearing as previously directed.