[2016] KEELRC 704 (KLR)
The court held that the subordinate court, having heard the employment dispute before the establishment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, retained jurisdiction to deliver judgment. The legal framework did not oust the jurisdiction of competent courts over matters already heard and pending judgment at the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 704 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Walter Warinda Wanini; Applicant: Paul Kipterer Koech; Applicant: Masaka Mwangala; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Subordinate Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts, Employment Disputes, Court Powers, Dismissal of Application
- 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
Walter Warinda Wanini
Applicant
Paul Kipterer Koech
Applicant
Masaka Mwangala
Applicant
Kenya Railways Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Subordinate Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to transfer a suit concluded in the subordinate court for judgment.
- 2 Whether the subordinate court retains jurisdiction to deliver judgment in employment matters heard before the establishment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
- 3 Whether the applicants complied with previous court orders and attended the hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the subordinate court, having heard the employment dispute before the establishment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, retained jurisdiction to deliver judgment. The legal framework did not oust the jurisdiction of competent courts over matters already heard and pending judgment at the time of the new court's establishment. The application to transfer the suit was therefore without merit. Additionally, the applicants failed to comply with previous court orders and did not attend the hearing, providing further grounds for dismissal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 14 July 2016 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELAIONS COURT AT NAKURU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2016
WALTER WARINDA WANINI 1ST APPLICANT
PAUL KIPTERER KOECH 2ND APPLICANT
MASAKA MWANGALA 3RD APPLICANT
v
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The 3 applicants moved Court on 15 July 2015 under certificate of urgency seeking orders
1. THAT the service of the application be dispensed with in the first instance.
2. THAT the Nakuru Chief Magistrate Court Civil Case No. 837 of 1997 be and is hereby transferred to this Honourable Court for judgment.
3. THAT cost of this application be in the cause.
2. The Court directed the application to be served upon the Respondent and set 6 September 2016 for inter partes hearing.
3. When the application was called out for hearing on 6 September 2016, the applicants, their advocate on record and the Respondent were not in Court and the Court set ruling for today.
4. According to grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit thereto, the hearing of the suit sought to be transferred was concluded before the subordinate Court.
5. Because the subordinate Court had jurisdiction over causes of action arising out of the employment relationship under the common law at the material time i.e. before the establishment of this Court and considering that the parties had been heard, it behoves the subordinate Court to prepare and render a judgment.
6. The legal framework establishing this Court did not oust jurisdiction of competent Courts ante the establishment where the said Courts had been seized of jurisdiction and where a suit had been heard and was only pending judgment.
7. The Court therefore finds no merit in the present application.
8. Further, the application is for dismissal because there is nothing to suggest that the applicants complied with the Court orders of 19 July 2016.
9. The failure by the applicants or their advocate on record to appear in Court on 6 September 2016 of itself is also another reason to dismiss the application.
10. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Court dismisses the application dated 14 July 2016 with no order as to costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 23rd day of September 2016.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For applicants Mr. Olaly Cheche instructed by Olaly Cheche & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Nixon