Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of motion dated 12th November 2015 in Cause No. 513 of 2009 (N)· [2016] KEELRC 1843 (KLR)

National Union of Water & Sewerage Employees v Registrar of Trade Unions & 17 others [2016] KEELRC 1843 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 June 2016
2,234 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to reopen a settled union leadership dispute, ruling that a prior final judgment already covering the same issue cannot be challenged again.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 6th to 17th interested parties, claiming to be bona fide elected officials of the claimant union following elections said to have been conducted in April 2010, moved the court by notice of motion dated 12th November 2015 seeking to vacate and set aside the consent order recorded on 30th April 2013, to have themselves declared the bona fide officials per the extracts of 24th September 2012 and 21st March 2015, and to injunct the 1st to 4th respondents and persons named in the Registrar's extract of 3rd November 2015 from acting as union officials. They contended the consent was illegal and null and void for overriding sections of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the union's constitution, and that it was procured without the involvement of the 3rd interested party. The claimant opposed through a preliminary objection arguing there was no suit before court, that the application contravened section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, and that it was an abuse of process and res judicata. The court held it had jurisdiction to review its own orders including consent orders, but found the application barred by res judicata, since its ruling of 17th April 2015 had already determined on the merits an application for review of the same consent order. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs to the 6th to 17th applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to set aside a consent order

Holding

The court has jurisdiction to review its own orders including consent orders; jurisdiction was not the bar.

Reasoning

The court held the principal parties supported the consent but the 3rd respondent denounced it. The dispute framed was whether the court could entertain an application to set aside a consent order. The court answered affirmatively, holding that a court may review its own orders whether entered by consent or otherwise. The real obstacle was therefore not jurisdiction but res judicata arising from the earlier ruling.

p. 5
02

Res judicata

Holding

The application is res judicata because the validity of the same consent order was already determined on the merits in the ruling of 17th April 2015.

Reasoning

The court noted that its ruling of 17th April 2015 dismissed the application for review on the merits, upholding the consent order. The 6th to 17th interested parties, joined only after that ruling, sought to revisit the same issue between the same parties. All three elements of res judicata were satisfied: an earlier decision, a final judgment on the merits, and the same parties or those in privity with them.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has jurisdiction to review its own orders, whether entered by consent or otherwise
  • The essential elements of res judicata are an earlier decision on the issue, a final judgment on the merits, and the same parties or parties in privity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 12th November 2015 is dismissed with costs to be borne by the 6th to 17th applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsection 34(1), 34(2)(b), section 8
  • Labour Institution Act, 2007section 34

Cases cited (4)

  • Republic -vs- The Disciplinary Committee, Law Society of Kenya ex-parte Wanje G. Wambugu t/a Wambugu and Co. Advocates
  • Darlgit Singh Theemar and others -vs- Surjit Singh Sagoo and 2 others
    (2004) eKLR
  • Road Market Limited -vs- Chester House Limited
    HCCC No. 932 of 1976, cited in Vol.II of GV Odunga's digest at P. 979
  • James Muthee Ndirangu, Simon Maina Wanjiku, Paul Kipkoech, Elijah Otieno Awach -vs- Registrar of Trade Unions and National Union of Water Sewerage Employees
    Civil Application No. NAI 243 of 2012 (Cr. 174/2012)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the court's inherent power to review its own orders

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 & 17 others [2016] KEELRC 1843 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Notice of motion dated 12th November 2015 in Cause No. 513 of 2009 (N). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1843/eng@2016-06-10

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