[2013] KEELRC 566 (KLR)
The Court determined that both applications—the Respondents' application dated 29 October 2012 and the Claimant's application to expunge affidavits—are interconnected and must be considered together. The Judge declined to rule on the Claimant's application in isolation and directed that the Respondents' application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 566 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Wanjohi Muthee; Respondent: Bayer East Africa Limited; Respondent: Bayer Environmental Sciences SA Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 520 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Ruling deferred; Respondents' application to be heard before comprehensive ruling.
- Legal Topics
- Affidavit Striking Out, Procedural Objections, Evidence Admissibility
- 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
Peter Wanjohi Muthee
Applicant
Bayer East Africa Limited
Respondent
Bayer Environmental Sciences SA Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the affidavits sworn by Mrs. Damaris Kimosop should be expunged from the record for factual inaccuracy and alleged misdirection.
- 2 Whether the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondents' application is a proper procedural course.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court determined that both applications—the Respondents' application dated 29 October 2012 and the Claimant's application to expunge affidavits—are interconnected and must be considered together. The Judge declined to rule on the Claimant's application in isolation and directed that the Respondents' application be heard first before a comprehensive ruling is delivered. The Court emphasized the importance of proper procedural conduct and the need to address related interlocutory matters in a coordinated manner.
Court Disposition
Ruling deferred; Respondents' application to be heard before comprehensive ruling.
Orders
- The Respondents' application dated 29 October 2012 shall be heard before a comprehensive ruling is delivered.
- The matter is adjourned for further directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 520 OF 2011
PETER WANJOHI MUTHEE......................................................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
BAYER EAST AFRICA LIMITED............................................................................................................ 1STRESPONDENT
BAYER ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SA LIMITED............................................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
On 18th June 2013, two applications were due for hearing. One was a Notice of Motion Application by the Respondent dated 29th October 2012. In that Application the Respondent seeks various reliefs against the Claimant in relation to the acquisition of an exhibit filed by the Claimant. In the second Application dated 21st May 2013, the Claimant sought the expunging of two affidavits filed by the Respondents sworn by Mrs. Damaris Kimosop the Human Resources Manager of the 1st Respondent and the dismissal of the Respondents application dated 29th October 2012. Appearances were as before - Mr. Nduru appeared for the Claimant while Mrs. Opiyo appeared for the Respondents.
I allowed Mr. Nduru to urge his Application first. His submissions were that the affidavits by Mrs. Kimosop ought to be expunged as they were factually inacurate. In central focus was the application for an entry permit for Mr. Nadim Mohr an employee of the Respondents. The depositions were said to contain distortions, untruthfulness and statements of misdirection to the Court. Mr. Nduru urged the Court to strike out the 2 affidavits. He wanted the affidavits struck out because according to the Claimant, the events she deposes to did not happen in the manner she stated in her affidavits. He went through the affidavits point by point highlighting the portions the Claimant took issue with.
The Claimant's application was strongly resisted by the Respondents. Mrs. Opiyo submitted that the proper course would have been for the Claimant to oppose her Application of 29 October 2012 and not file an application in opposition. She submitted that one cannot have an application trying to strike out another application. She submitted that indeed the Claimant seeks to detract the Court from determination of the application of 29 October 2012. She submitted that on the strength of Festus Ogada v. Hans Mollin [2009] eKLRthe Court should not assist a party who has flouted the law as it offends public policy.
I heard the submissions of both parties and retreated to deliberate on the first application and only realise now that the two applications must be considred together. I will hear the Respondents dated 29 October 2012 before I set a date for the comprehensive Ruling in the matter.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 14thday of June 2013
Hon. Mr. Justice Nzioki wa Makau
Judge