Moses Ogutu Oyugi & 6 others v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union & another [2018] KECA 634 (KLR)

Court of Appeal

20 April 2018

DMD. K. Musinga

W. Ouko PKP. O. Kiage

1,196 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot re-litigate an issue a competent court has already finally decided between the same parties.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Court of Appeal (Musinga, Ouko and Kiage, JJ.A.) dismissed this appeal against a ruling of Monica Mbaru, J. of the Industrial Court delivered on 12th October 2012, upholding a preliminary objection that the appellants' suit in Industrial Cause No. 801 of 2012 was res judicata. The dispute concerned the leadership of the Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union. In Cause No. 183 of 2012, Mukunya, J. had dismissed a claim in which Moses Ogutu Oyugi and his group challenged the registration of ten persons as the Union's duly elected national office holders. Barely fifteen days later the same group filed Cause No. 801 of 2012 seeking a declaration that those same persons were not the true and legitimately elected office holders, together with an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court allowed the preliminary objection and dismissed both the application dated 9th May 2012 and the entire suit. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal held the later suit barred by res judicata, since the matter directly and substantially in issue had already been heard and finally decided between the same parties by a competent court. The Court found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it. Because the respondents neither filed documents nor attended the hearing, the Court ordered that each party bear their own costs. The decision binds subordinate courts and tribunals to treat Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as a complete bar to re-litigation of matters conclusively determined in earlier suits between the same parties.

Key legal issues

Whether the suit in Industrial Cause No. 801 of 2012 was barred by res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

Yes. The claim in the later suit sought the same declaration against the same persons as had been conclusively determined by Mukunya, J. in Cause No. 183 of 2012; the trial judge was right to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.

Reasoning

Fifteen days after Mukunya, J. dismissed the claim challenging the registration of the ten office bearers, the same protagonists filed Cause No. 801 of 2012 seeking a declaratory order that the very same persons were not the true and legitimately elected office holders of the Union. The Court applied Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act verbatim, holding the matter directly and substantially in issue had already been heard and finally decided between the same parties by a competent court.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A suit or issue directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, which has been heard and finally decided by a competent court, cannot be re-tried; it is res judicata.

Court orders

1.Appeal dismissed
2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure ActSection 7
Labour Relations Act

On appeal from: Industrial Court at Nairobi; Industrial Cause No. 801 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked: First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court) under the Labour Court Act/Civil Procedure framework; the judgment does not state the provision expressly.

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moses Ogutu Oyugi & 6 others v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union & another [2018] KECA 634 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/634/eng@2018-04-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.