[2024] KEELRC 959 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 959 (KLR)

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside or review orders issued by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction in a different miscellaneous application. The application was improperly brought in the present matter rather than in the original file where the order was made. The judge emphasized that to grant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 959 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Miriam Tungani & 2 others; Respondent: Juma Hardware Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Case E279 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Previous Orders and Compel Payment of Judgment Debt
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
K Ocharo
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Review of Court Orders, Jurisdiction of Court, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Execution of Judgment Review of Court Orders Jurisdiction of Court Stay of Execution

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miriam Tungani & 2 others

Applicant

Juma Hardware Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Previous Orders and Compel Payment of Judgment Debt

  1. 1 Whether this court has jurisdiction to set aside orders issued by a different judge in a separate miscellaneous application.
  2. 2 Whether the application should have been filed under the original matter where the order sought to be reviewed was issued.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in depositing the decretal sum invalidated the stay of execution and entitled the applicants to immediate payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside or review orders issued by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction in a different miscellaneous application. The application was improperly brought in the present matter rather than in the original file where the order was made. The judge emphasized that to grant the orders sought would amount to sitting on appeal over a colleague's decision, which is not permissible. The application was therefore dismissed for want of merit and procedural impropriety, without addressing the substantive issues regarding the timing of the deposit or the alleged misrepresentation by the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 6th December 2023 is dismissed.
  • A signed copy of the ruling will be availed to each party upon payment of court fees.