[2022] KEELRC 249 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 249 (KLR)

The court found that the order of 10.02.2022 was an adjournment, not a stay of proceedings as claimed by the applicant. The applicant's failure to extract and exhibit the order was excused since both parties agreed the order was made, but had the order been extracted, it would have clarified that no stay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 249 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Professor James Njiru; Respondent: Director, Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute; Applicant: Dr. Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Review of Court Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Judicial Review Review of Court Orders Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Res Judicata

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Professor James Njiru

Respondent

Director, Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute

Respondent

Dr. Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order

  1. 1 Whether the court order of 10.02.2022 was properly made and should be reviewed or set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to issue the order of 10.02.2022.
  3. 3 Whether the matter was res judicata in light of previous Court of Appeal decisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 10.02.2022 was an adjournment, not a stay of proceedings as claimed by the applicant. The applicant's failure to extract and exhibit the order was excused since both parties agreed the order was made, but had the order been extracted, it would have clarified that no stay was granted. The court further held that the binding order regarding stay of proceedings was that of the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. 112 of 2019, which was self-executing and dependent on compliance with its terms. No evidence was presented regarding compliance with the Court of Appeal's conditions. The applicant failed to establish any valid ground for review, and the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated and filed on 28.02.2022 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.