Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)

Geoffrey Asanyo v Chairman, Board of Directors, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited & another [2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 December 2016
LNLINNET NDOLO
364 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Linndolo J (as she then was, Ndolo J) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi determined the Respondents' application dated 8th December 2015, by which they sought to vacate orders granted by Mbaru J on 1st December 2015 and to strike out the Claimant's suit and application of the same date. The application, supported by the affidavit of Osman Ibrahim, was premised on four grounds: that the court should not aid egregious actions, that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the Claimant lacked locus standi as he had suffered no injury from the Board's decisions and appointments, and that the suit was brought in bad faith and was an abuse of court process. The Respondents deponed that the Claimant had participated in shortlisting and interviews for the positions of GIS Analyst, Technical Manager, and Human Resource and Administration Manager but failed to attend the final sitting, and that the persons appointed were qualified, the decisions being unanimous or by clear majority. The court held that the supporting affidavit raised many issues of fact that required testing by viva voce evidence. It accordingly declined to grant the orders sought and directed the parties to fix the main claim for hearing on a priority basis. No costs order was made. The substantive claim remains pending before the court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether allegations of lack of jurisdiction, lack of locus standi, bad faith and abuse of process can be resolved on affidavit evidence

Holding

No - the supporting affidavit raised contested issues of fact requiring viva voce evidence, so the striking-out application was declined

Reasoning

The Respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction, the Claimant lacked locus standi having suffered no injury, and the suit was brought in bad faith as an abuse of process. The court found the supporting affidavit of Osman Ibrahim raised many factual issues, such as the Claimant's participation in interviews and whether the appointments caused injury, which could not be determined without testing the evidence by calling witnesses. The appropriate course was to decline the interlocutory orders and expedite the main hearing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not determine an application to strike out a suit where the grounds raised depend on contested issues of fact that require testing by viva voce evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondents' application dated 8th December 2015 is declined
  2. 2.The parties are directed to fix the main claim for hearing on a priority basis
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; the matter is before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in its first-instance jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Asanyo v Chairman, Board of Directors, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Limited & another [2016] KEELRC 75 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/75/eng@2016-12-09

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