[2021] KEELRC 2150 (KLR)
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for two principal reasons: first, the issues raised were already the subject of existing suits involving the same parties, and orders had been issued obligating the Respondent to assume liability for the Grievant. The proper course for the Claimant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 2150 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rift Valley Railway Workers Union; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 830 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Claim declined for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Limitation Periods, Abuse of Court Process
- 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
Rift Valley Railway Workers Union
Applicant
Kenya Railways Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim in light of existing suits involving the same parties and issues.
- 2 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 3 Whether the filing of the present claim constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for two principal reasons: first, the issues raised were already the subject of existing suits involving the same parties, and orders had been issued obligating the Respondent to assume liability for the Grievant. The proper course for the Claimant was to seek enforcement of those orders within the existing suits, rather than initiating a new claim. Second, the claim was filed five years after the Grievant's dismissal, exceeding the three-year limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act. The combination of these factors rendered the claim incompetent and an abuse of the court process.
Court Disposition
Claim declined for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The claim is declined for want of jurisdiction.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 830 OF 2019
BETWEEN
RIFT VALLEY RAILWAY WORKERS UNION..............................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION..........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant filed this Claim on behalf of its Member/ Grievant, Francis Oduor Odera, on 13th December 2019.
2. Odera was employed by the Respondent as a Locomotive Driver is 1990, and dismissed on 21st October 2014.
3. The Claimant seeks to have Odera reinstated, or paid compensation and terminal benefits.
4. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 19th February 2020, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. It is the position of the Respondent that all issues raised by the Claimant, are directly in issue in previously instituted suits, being: Nairobi E&LRC Petition No. 76 of 2017 Elijah Mokaya & Others v. Kenya Railways Corporation; E&LRC Cause No. 37 of 2013 Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v. Kenya Railways Corporation; andRift Valley Railways [Kenya] Limited v. Kenya Railways Corporation & The Government of Kenya.
5. Parties recorded consent to have the Preliminary Objection considered and determined on the strength of their Pleadings and Submissions. They confirmed filing of the Submissions on 17th December 2020.
The Court Finds: -
6. The Claimant acknowledges the presence of other suits listed at paragraph 4 of this Ruling, involving the similar issues. In its Pleadings, the Claimant refers to Consent Order recorded in ‘’Commercial Suit Number 136 of 2017, whose import was to terminate the existence of one of the Parties therein, the Respondent herein, courtesy of the said order and other subsequent orders as recorded in Petition Number 76 of 2017, obligates the Respondent herein to assume every liability accrued to the Grievant herein.’’
7. Why file a fresh Claim, if there are other Claims filed in Court, where orders have issued, obligating the Respondent to assume every liability accrued to the Grievant herein? Enforcement should be through the existing Claims, where liability was found to have accrued.
8. In its Application dated 13th October 2019, the Claimant seeks an order, in rather unclear language, that:
‘’the Hon. Court directs, that in light of the Consent Orders as have been presented in Court by the Applicant herein, in Commercial Suit Number 136 of 2017 and Petition 76 of 2017, the Respondent herein be fully obligated in the likely event that the Court ascertains liability.’’
9. The present Claim therefore assumes the character of an enforcement mechanism, over orders issued in other litigation. It is based on orders arising from other litigation. This is in abuse of the court process. The Claimant ought to pursue remedy under the existing suits, not open up new, confusing frontiers.
10. Looking at the Claim from another perspective, the Claimant was dismissed on 21st October 2014. He filed this Claim on 13th December 2019, 5 years later. The Claim offends Section 90 of the Employment Act.
11. The Court lacks jurisdiction on account of the presence of other suits involving the same Parties and issues; and, on account of Section 90 of the Employment Act.
IT IS ORDERED: -
a. The Claim is declined for want of jurisdiction.
b. No order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of February, 2021.
James Rika
JUDGE