Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2013] KEELRC 9 (KLR)

Francis Ndichu Kahiga & 2 others v Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Co. Ltd & others [2013] KEELRC 9 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
17 December 2013
461 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to reopen a settled labour dispute, ruling that complaints about an advocate's conduct belong with the Law Society, not the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Three persons describing themselves as Interested Parties - Josphat Mugo Kamau, Muriithi Kamau Muini and Charles Mwangi - applied by notice dated 24th September 2013 to be allowed to substitute the Claimants in a concluded employment claim and to act in person, with costs in the cause. They alleged that the three original claimants authorized by 1458 claimants, and their advocate, had been compromised by the Respondent. The court rejected the application. It found there was no pending claim: a Consent Award had been registered between the Claimants and the Respondent, money had been paid out, and a ruling of 12th April 2013 had marked the claim as settled and closed the file. The applicants had themselves been among those who authorized the persons they sought to replace and were not Interested Parties. The court also observed that a purported consent, filed on 12th November 2013 after the file was closed, sought to allow the very application but was unsigned by the applicants, and concluded there was mischief in the application. Leave to act in person would be futile in a concluded matter; the applicants' real grievance was over payment of the decretal sum by their advocates, a matter for the Law Society of Kenya or the Advocates Complaints Commission rather than reopening a file the court had declared shut. The application was rejected and the applicants directed to pursue any claim against their advocate at the appropriate forum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether applicants could substitute claimants in a settled claim

Holding

Application rejected; no pending suit exists to justify substitution

Reasoning

The claim had been settled through a registered Consent Award with money paid out, and the court had marked the claim as settled and closed the file on 12th April 2013. The applicants themselves had authorized the very persons they now sought to replace, and were not Interested Parties. The court also detected mischief in a purported consent filed after the file was closed.

p. 2
02

Whether leave to act in person should be granted

Holding

Refused as futile in a concluded matter

Reasoning

The applicants' real complaint concerned payment of the decretal sum by their advocates. That dispute does not warrant reopening proceedings; the proper remedy lies with the Law Society of Kenya or the Advocates Complaints Commission, not the Industrial Court.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A concluded and settled matter cannot be reopened through substitution of claimants or withdrawal of advocates; grievances against advocates belong to disciplinary fora

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 24th September 2013 is rejected
  2. 2.Applicants may pursue the claim against their Advocate at the appropriate forum
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Ndichu Kahiga & 2 others v Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Co. Ltd & others [2013] KEELRC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/9/eng@2013-12-17

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