[2015] KEHC 2682 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2682 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, as there was no evidence that the Deputy Secretary General provided any service to the respondent from June to November 2014. The court noted that the employee did not report to his new post in Uganda as directed by a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2682 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K); Respondent: Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2205 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application and substantive claim dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Unlawful Dismissal, Withholding of Salary, Interlocutory Relief, Union Activities
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Dismissal Withholding of Salary Interlocutory Relief Union Activities

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K)

Applicant

Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Secretary General is entitled to salary and bonuses for June to November 2014 despite not reporting to work.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent acted in contempt of court by withholding salary.
  3. 3 Whether the application for interlocutory relief is merited in the absence of a substantive claim regarding dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, as there was no evidence that the Deputy Secretary General provided any service to the respondent from June to November 2014. The court noted that the employee did not report to his new post in Uganda as directed by a previous court order and was subsequently dismissed after failing to respond to a show cause letter. The memorandum of claim did not address the dismissal or seek any substantive relief regarding it. The court held that the application and the substantive claim amounted to an abuse of court process and dismissed both with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application and substantive claim dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 11th December 2014 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The substantive claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent.