Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 513(N) of 2009· [2015] KEELRC 1576 (KLR)

National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees v Registrar of Trade Unions & 5 others [2015] KEELRC 1576 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
17 April 2015
441 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

#

A Kenyan court refused to review a consent order because the twelve applicants were never parties to the case, and punished them with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance ruling of the Industrial Court at Nairobi, delivered by Mathews N. Nduma, Principal Judge, on 17th April, 2015, determined an application for review of a consent order recorded in Cause No. 513(N) of 2009. The consent order, signed by counsel for the Interested Parties, the Claimant, and the Registrar of Trade Unions, had concluded all issues in dispute and superseded and set aside all previous orders. About a year later, twelve persons who were not parties to the suit, acting through Michael Owuor & Company Advocates and supported by an affidavit of Philemon Otieno Atik, applied for review under Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act, 2011 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010. The Registrar of Trade Unions opposed through Grounds of Opposition filed by State Counsel Beatrice Akuno, contending that the Applicants had not shown the consent was irregularly drawn or signed and that the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The Claimant likewise opposed, submitting that the Applicants had not disclosed their interest and were vexatious litigants deserving an award of costs. The court found the Applicants lacked locus standi, having never been joined, and that the application and supporting affidavit disclosed no Rule 32 grounds for review. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of non-parties to apply for review of a consent order

Holding

The Application fails because the Applicants are strangers to the suit and were never joined, denying them standing to set aside the consent order

Reasoning

The court noted that the consent order of 30th April, 2013 concluded all issues in Cause No. 513(N) of 2009 between the actual parties. The 12 Applicants were not parties to that suit and never sought leave to be joined. Without joinder they lacked locus standi to move the court for review of a consent order binding only on the parties. The supporting affidavit also failed to disclose the deponent's connection to the case or authority to act for the 12 Applicants.

p. 1
02

Whether the review application met the requirements of Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010

Holding

No ground for review under Rule 32 was disclosed on the face of the application or the supporting affidavit

Reasoning

The supporting affidavit of Philemon Otieno Atik lacked material averments: it did not disclose the deponent's connection to the case, annex no authority to act for the 12 Applicants, give no reasons why the consent order should be set aside, and disclose not a single Rule 32 ground warranting review. The Respondent submitted the consent was not shown to have been irregularly drawn and signed, and the court upheld those submissions.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A non-party cannot seek review of a consent order without first obtaining leave to be joined to the suit to acquire locus standi

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application for Review of the consent order dated 14th February, 2014 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court ActSection 16
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) RulesRule 32
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act, 2011 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees v Registrar of Trade Unions & 5 others [2015] KEELRC 1576 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 513(N) of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1576/eng@2015-04-17

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