[2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR)
The court held that its decision in Cause No E722 of 2022 addressed only the question of whether the provision for gratuity in the 2013-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement could apply retrospectively, and did not determine the respective claims of individual employees or former employees. Therefore, the prior...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucas Onyango Otieno; Respondent: University of Nairobi
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E205 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Applicability of Prior Judgment
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection dismissed; claim to proceed to hearing on merit.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Collective Bargaining Agreements, Gratuity Entitlement, Retrospective Application, Res Judicata, Individual Employee Claims
- 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
Lucas Onyango Otieno
Applicant
University of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Applicability of Prior Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment in Cause No E722 of 2022 operates as res judicata to bar the present claim.
- 2 Whether the provision for gratuity in the 2013-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement applies retrospectively to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that its decision in Cause No E722 of 2022 addressed only the question of whether the provision for gratuity in the 2013-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement could apply retrospectively, and did not determine the respective claims of individual employees or former employees. Therefore, the prior judgment cannot be used to defeat the present claim, which raises distinct issues specific to the claimant. The matter should proceed to hearing on its merits, as the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in these circumstances.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed; claim to proceed to hearing on merit.
Orders
- The present claim shall proceed to hearing on merit.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Otieno v University of Nairobi (Cause E205 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E205 of 2021
L Ndolo, J
February 27, 2025
Between
Lucas Onyango Otieno
Claimant
and
University of Nairobi
Respondent
Ruling
1. When the main claim came up for hearing on 24th October 2024, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the subject matter of the claim is similar to Cause No E722 of 2022: Kudheiha v University of Nairobi, in which the Court had already delivered judgment.
2. Counsel for the Claimant took a different view, stating that there was evidence that the judgment in Cause No E722 of 2022 did not apply to this matter.
3. Arising from the divergent positions taken by the parties, I directed Counsel to file written submissions on this issue.
4. In its submissions dated 12th November 2024, the Respondent states that the issues raised in the present case are similar to those determined in Cause No E722 of 2022.
5. On his part, the Claimant disagrees with the position taken by the Respondent. In his submissions dated 15th November 2024, he refers to the decision in World Explorers Safaris Limited v Cosmopolitan Travel Limited & another [2021] eKLR where it was held that:“The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of the particular case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference of facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but one must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in the thickets and branches.”
6. My decision in Cause No E722 of 2022 dealt with the single question whether the provision for gratuity in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2013-2017 could apply retrospectively. To my mind, this decision did not address respective claims by individual employees or former employees of the Respondent.
7. The judgment in Cause No E722 of 2022 cannot therefore be used to defeat the present claim, which I direct, will proceed to hearing on merit.
8. I make no order for costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2025LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Onenga for the ClaimantMs. Nyaga for the Respondent