[2019] KEELRC 1126 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1126 (KLR)

The court found that the application before it was res judicata, as the issues raised had already been determined in previous rulings involving the same parties and subject matter. The court noted that the applicant had filed multiple suits on broadly the same issues, and that the present application sought similar...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1126 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K); Respondent: The Trustees, Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation; Respondent: Corporate Trustees; Respondent: Retirement Benefits Authority; Respondent: Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission; Respondent: Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited; Respondent: Alexander Forbes
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2289 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application struck out as res judicata
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Res Judicata, Locus Standi, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Employment Court Res Judicata Locus Standi Abuse of Court Process

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K)

Applicant

The Trustees, Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme

Respondent

Kenya Railways Corporation

Respondent

Corporate Trustees

Respondent

Retirement Benefits Authority

Respondent

Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission

Respondent

Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited

Respondent

Alexander Forbes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of previous rulings and judgments.
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised are res judicata due to prior determinations in related matters.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has locus standi to bring the claim against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application before it was res judicata, as the issues raised had already been determined in previous rulings involving the same parties and subject matter. The court noted that the applicant had filed multiple suits on broadly the same issues, and that the present application sought similar reliefs as those previously adjudicated. The court emphasized that the principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters that have already been settled by a competent court. The court also observed that the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the court process by repeatedly bringing similar applications. Consequently, the court struck out the application for being...

Court Disposition

application struck out as res judicata

Orders

  • The application is struck out for being res judicata.
  • No orders as to costs.