[2014] KEELRC 1481 (KLR)
The court held that the claimant's attempt to enforce compliance with the judgment in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 by filing a new claim was procedurally improper. The appropriate legal recourse for non-compliance with a court order is to initiate execution or contempt proceedings within the original cause, not to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 1481 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Thomas Joseph Onyango; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Reuben Ochako
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 509 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Motion
- Outcome
- claim struck out as incompetent and abuse of process
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Execution of Judgment, Party Properness, Court Orders Enforcement
- 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
Thomas Joseph Onyango
Claimant
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Reuben Ochako
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant can institute a fresh claim to enforce compliance with a previous court judgment.
- 2 Whether the Attorney General is a proper party to the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the appropriate procedure for non-compliance with a court order is contempt or execution in the original cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claimant's attempt to enforce compliance with the judgment in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 by filing a new claim was procedurally improper. The appropriate legal recourse for non-compliance with a court order is to initiate execution or contempt proceedings within the original cause, not to commence a fresh action against parties such as the Attorney General who are not proper parties to the dispute. The court found the present claim to be incompetent and an abuse of process, and accordingly struck out the motion and memorandum of claim with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
claim struck out as incompetent and abuse of process
Orders
- The instant motion and memorandum of claim are struck out with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 509 OF 2014
THOMAS JOSEPH ONYANGO CLAIMANT
v
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL 1st RESPONDENT
REUBEN OCHAKO 2nd RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Thomas Joseph O Onyango (Claimant) filed a Memorandum of Claim against the Attorney General (1st Respondent) and Reuben Ochako (2nd Respondent) on 14 October 2014 seeking punitive damages of Kshs 5,000,000/-, salaries and allowances, implementation of the judgment of Court in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013, Thomas Joseph O. Onyango v the State & Teachers Service Commission, contempt of Court against the Chief Executive Officer, Teachers Service Commission, and other reliefs.
2. Principally, the reliefs sought by the Claimant arise directly out of the judgment of Court delivered in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 on 13 June 2014 by Ongaya J. The Court awarded the Claimant Kshs 1,389,539/60 and salary arrears to be computed and ordered that he resume duties.
3. Together with the Memorandum of Claim, the Claimant filed a motion under urgency on the same day. I heard the motion on 23 October 2014 and directed that ruling would be on notice.
4. In submissions, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had not complied with Court orders granted in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 and that he was suffering financially.
5. Although not cited as a Respondent, the Court allowed Ms. Ruto to submit on behalf of the Teachers Service Commission. She stated that the Teachers Service Commission had appealed the decision in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 and that in any case, the Respondent had not shown that he reported to the school as ordered.
6. Ms. Kariuki for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Hon Attorney General was not a proper party to the dispute and it was not aware of the dispute.
7. If the reliefs granted by the Court on 13 June 2014 have not been complied with, the legal option available to the Claimant is to commence execution process or contempt in Nakuru Cause No. 407 of 2013 and not institution of fresh action against the Honourable the Attorney General.
8. The present claim is therefore incompetent and an abuse of the Court process. The Court hereby strikes out the instant Motion and Memorandum of Claim with costs to the Respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 18th day of December 2014.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
Claimant in person
Respondent Ms. Kariuki, Litigation Counsel, Office of the Attorney General