[2016] KEHC 8133 (KLR)
The court found that it could not determine the nature of the dispute between the parties, as the plaint and defence were not part of the court file and the documents available did not clarify whether the matter was an employer-employee dispute. Since the preliminary objection required the court to ascertain facts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8133 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Pollen Limited; Respondent: Esther Wanjiku Thomas
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 182 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- 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
Pollen Limited
Applicant
Esther Wanjiku Thomas
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application given the alleged employer-employee relationship between the parties.
- 2 Whether the application is incurably defective and incompetent due to the party description.
- 3 Whether the preliminary objection raises pure points of law that can be determined without ascertaining facts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it could not determine the nature of the dispute between the parties, as the plaint and defence were not part of the court file and the documents available did not clarify whether the matter was an employer-employee dispute. Since the preliminary objection required the court to ascertain facts not evident from the record, it did not raise a pure point of law. Therefore, the preliminary objection was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL DIVISION
HCC MIS APPL.182 OF 2016
POLLEN LIMITED .....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ESTHER WANJIKU THOMAS.............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant, Pollen Limited, filed a Notice of motion dated 22nd April, 2016 seeking orders of stay of execution and leave to file an appeal out of time.
2. The Respondent filed the Notice of preliminary objection dated 28th April, 2016 and raised an objection to the application on the following grounds:
“1. That the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application arising from a suit involving an employer and an employee. This is the province of the employment and labour Relations Court.
2. That the application dated 22nd April 2016 in any event is incurably defective and incompetent to the extent that the party suing or initiating the motion is described as the defendant.
3. That the Applicant is neither challenging quantum nor liability, but challenges the refusal by the Lower Court to decline to hear the casede novosimultaneously with a challenge to a Judgement not challenged on the known grounds of liability and quantum a scenario that raises an absurdity and is a clear abuse of the court process.”
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 12th July, 2016 the parties agreed to dispose of the same by way of written submissions. The Respondent filed their written submissions but the Appellant did not file any nor attended Court although they were aware of date fixed.
4. I have considered the grounds upon which the preliminary objection is based, the written submissions and the authority cited.
5. The essence of a preliminary objection was given by Law, JA and Sir Charles Newbold P. in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd Vs West End Distributors (1969) Ea 696. At page 700, Law, JA stated that:
“…a ‘preliminary objection’ consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court or a plea of limitation or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.”
Sir Charles Newbold P. added as follows at page 701:
A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.”
6. I have perused this file in it’s entirety. The documents filed herein include the Notice of Motion in question together with the affidavit in support and the annextures which include a ruling by the Lower Court in an application seeking to set aside exparte proceedings and judgment. The ruling is dated 14th December, 2015. A draft memorandum of appeal is also annexed. I have also perused the replying affidavit filed in opposition to the Notice of Motion in question.
7. From the said perusal of the file herein, this court is not able to discern what kind of dispute exists between the parties. The plaint and the defence do not form part of this court file. It is not possible to tell from this file whether the dispute is an employer employee dispute or not. This court is not able to determine the preliminary objection on either questions of Law or undisputed facts. Consequently, the preliminary objection is dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 13th October, 2016
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE