Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOther· [2013] KEELRC 566 (KLR)

Peter Wanjohi Muthee v Bayer East Africa Limited & another [2013] KEELRC 566 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 June 2013
NMNzioki wa Makau
401 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 declined to remove disputed HR affidavits immediately, instead sequencing the related applications so both could be heard together before a comprehensive ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by Nzioki wa Makau J on 14th June 2013, dealt with two competing applications listed for hearing on 18th June 2013. The Respondents had filed a Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2012 seeking reliefs concerning the acquisition of an exhibit filed by the Claimant. The Claimant in turn applied by Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2013 for the expunging of two affidavits sworn by Mrs. Damaris Kimosop, the Human Resources Manager of the 1st Respondent, and for the dismissal of the Respondents' application. Counsel for the Claimant, Mr. Nduru, submitted that the affidavits were factually inaccurate, containing distortions and untruths, particularly regarding an entry permit application for Mr. Nadim Mohr, an employee of the Respondents. Mrs. Opiyo, for the Respondents, countered that the proper course was to oppose the 29th October 2012 application rather than file a competing application to strike it out, and invoked Festus Ogada v. Hans Mollin [2009] eKLR on public policy. Having heard submissions and deliberated, the court concluded that the two applications had to be considered together. It directed that the Respondents' application be heard first before a comprehensive ruling is set. No final relief was granted and no costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural competency of an application to strike out affidavits filed in support of a pending application

Holding

The court did not make a final determination on this issue; it instead directed that the two applications be considered together and that the Respondents' application be heard first.

Reasoning

The Claimant sought expungement of the Respondents' HR Manager's affidavits on grounds of inaccuracy and distortion. The Respondents argued the proper course was to oppose their application rather than file a competing one, citing Festus Ogada v. Hans Mollin on public policy. The court adjourned to deliberate, then realised the two applications were interlinked and should be considered together, deferring a comprehensive ruling.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The Respondents' Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2012 to be heard before any comprehensive ruling is set
    2. 2.A date to be set for the comprehensive ruling in the matter after hearing the Respondents' application

    Authorities

    #

    Cases cited (1)

    • Festus Ogada v. Hans Mollin
      [2009] eKLR
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (provision not expressly cited in the judgment)

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Peter Wanjohi Muthee v Bayer East Africa Limited & another [2013] KEELRC 566 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/566/eng@2013-06-14

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