Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedAppeal filed by memorandum of appeal dated 16th August 2019 (number not stated in judgment)· [2021] KECA 87 (KLR)

Dock Workers Union Kenya v Kenya Ports Authority (Civil Appeal 112 of 2019) [2021] KECA 87 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
8 October 2021
2,545 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that you cannot revive a decided claim by refiling it through a different party, like a trade union.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
A trade union sued a state corporation in the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa on behalf of members dismissed between July and September 2015, seeking specific performance compelling payment of bonuses for the 2014/2015 financial period, allegedly declared in August 2016 and withheld contrary to Section 18 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on locus standi, absence of cause of action and res judicata, relying on an earlier suit (Cause No. 448 of 2015) by the same members in their personal capacities, whose judgment of 29th February 2016 had been set aside on the respondent's appeal. The trial court upheld the objection on 20th June 2019, holding the claim res judicata. The union appealed, arguing the bonus claim accrued after the earlier judgment and that it was not a party to the earlier suit. The Court of Appeal identified a single issue: whether the trial court was right to hold the suit res judicata. Applying the five conjunctive elements from IEBC v Maina Kiai and Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court found the bonus issue had been alive in the earlier suit - as evidenced by the appellant counsel's own application for a stay pending the appeal in that suit - and that the union's members were litigating under the same title. Parties may not litigate in piecemeal, so the fresh suit was barred. The Court upheld the trial court's ruling, dismissed the appeal, and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim was res judicata in light of the earlier suit (ELRC Cause No. 448 of 2015) by the appellant's members

Holding

Yes. The issue of payment of bonuses was raised and determined in the earlier suit between the same parties or those claiming under the same title before a competent court; the union filing a fresh suit could not circumvent that determination.

Reasoning

The appellant's members had sued in their personal capacities in Cause No. 448 of 2015, which included a claim for bonuses; terminal dues were awarded, and on appeal by the respondent that judgment was set aside. The bonus now claimed had been declared in August 2016, but counsel for the appellant had earlier applied for stay of proceedings on the basis that the bonus issue was central in the pending appeal. That was an admission that the bonus issue was alive in the earlier suit. Since parties may not litigate in piecemeal, the issue cannot be revisited through a fresh suit by the union claiming under the same title. This is a classic case for the doctrine of res judicata.

p. 5
02

Whether the payment of bonuses was properly before the court as part of the preliminary objection

Holding

Yes. The preliminary objection raised cause of action and res judicata, which encompassed the bonus claim; the appellant could not allege the issue was not pleaded.

Reasoning

Issue number two of the preliminary objection raised the question of cause of action, and the appellant's claim on payment of bonus was raised and objected to by the respondent. Those were the set of facts giving rise to the claim, so the appellant could not turn around and allege the matter was not pleaded. The locus standi limb was peripheral and was not determined by the trial court, so the Court of Appeal need not concern itself with it.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • For the bar of res judicata to be raised and upheld, five elements must be satisfied conjunctively: the issue was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; the parties were the same or claimed under the same parties; they litigated under the same title; the issue was heard and finally determined; and the former court was competent.
  • A claimant may not relitigate a determined issue by filing a fresh suit through a different party (such as a union) claiming under the same title, even if the new claimant was not itself a party to the former suit.
  • Parties are not permitted to litigate in piecemeal; the fact that a claim accrued after judgment in an earlier suit does not defeat res judicata where the issue was raised and determined in that earlier suit.
  • A preliminary objection that succeeds summarily disposes of an entire suit without plenary hearing and must therefore be exercised with caution; a plea of res judicata is a pure point of law suitable for determination by way of preliminary objection.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The trial court's ruling upholding the preliminary objection on res judicata was upheld
  2. 2.The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 18
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Trade Unions Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41

Cases cited (3)

  • Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General
    [2016] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] E.A 696
  • Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai & 5 Others
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Not stated in judgment; appeal against ruling dated 20th June 2019 (claim commenced 14th October 2016)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal (by way of retrial) against the ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dock Workers Union Kenya v Kenya Ports Authority (Civil Appeal 112 of 2019) [2021] KECA 87 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal filed by memorandum of appeal dated 16th August 2019 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/87/eng@2021-10-08

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