Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause 2289 of 2015 (application dated 19th October 2017)· [2018] KEELRC 862 (KLR)

Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Rift Valley Retirement Benefits Scheme & 6 others [2018] KEELRC 862 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 October 2018
3,270 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed a union's repeated attempt to block the sale of pension scheme properties, ruling that re-litigating already-decided matters wastes the court's time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union, Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K), filed a notice of application dated 19th October 2017 seeking a permanent order restraining the respondents and interested parties from selling properties listed in Legal Notice Number 169 of 2006, pending determination of issues concerning jurisdiction and its standing. The application followed a ruling of 19th August 2016 by Ndolo J referring the parties to the Retirement Benefits Authority Tribunal to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under the Retirement Benefits Act. The union claimed the Tribunal was dysfunctional, its members' terms having expired in February 2014, and that the ELRC should therefore assume jurisdiction. The respondents and interested parties opposed, arguing the application was res judicata, vexatious and an abuse of process, that the union lacked locus standi and that the injunction was not anchored on any pleadings. Justice Onyango framed four issues: locus standi, res judicata, whether the claimant was a vexatious litigant, and entitlement to the prayers. She declined to determine locus standi at that stage. Relying on prior rulings including one by Radido J in Misc. Application No. 197 of 2017 and numerous unprosecuted applications by the union over the same subject matter, she found the application res judicata, vexatious and an abuse of court process. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs and interim orders of 12th October 2018 were discharged.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of the union

Holding

The court declined to determine locus standi at this stage, finding insufficient material and that it was not central to the application

Reasoning

The respondents argued the union had no recognition agreement or members among pensioners. The court held the issue required more in-depth consideration given the many suits filed and was not central to the application's determination, so it deferred it.

p. 3
02

Res judicata and vexatious litigation

Holding

The application was res judicata and vexatious, having been replicated in multiple prior applications and rulings

Reasoning

The court noted numerous prior applications over the same subject matter, including rulings by Radido J and E. C. Mwita J declining similar relief. The claimant did not deny having about ten unprosecuted applications over the same issues. The court agreed with Radido J that the application bordered on abuse of process.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to the prayers sought

Holding

The claimant was not entitled to the orders sought; the application was dismissed

Reasoning

Having found the prayers were previously sought and refused, and that the claimant had suffocated the respondents with suits on similar grounds, the court found the application res judicata, vexatious and an abuse of process, and dismissed it without costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An application whose prayers have been sought and determined in prior suits between the same parties is res judicata; repeated litigation over the same subject matter borders on vexation and abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 19th October 2017 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.The orders dated 12th October 2018 are discharged

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Retirement Benefits ActDispute resolution mechanisms
  • Labour Relations ActRegistration of trade unions
  • Societies ActCap 108

Cases cited (13)

  • CECIL MILLER -V- JACKSON NGERU
  • MARY NGARU -V- FAMILY BANK
  • Kihara v Barclays Bank (K) Ltd
    (2001) 2 EA 420
  • Nairobi Petition No. 468 of 2016
  • Misc. Application No. 197 of 2017 (Radido J ruling)
  • Misc. Application No. 84 of 2016
  • Misc. Application No. 76 of 2015
  • Misc. Application No. 59 of 2016
  • Misc. Application No. 10 of 2018
  • Cause No. 783 of 2017, Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme
  • Misc. Application No. 99 of 2017
  • Petition No. 159 of 2012 consolidated with Petition No. 353 of 2012
  • Retirement Benefits Authority Tribunal Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Rift Valley Retirement Benefits Scheme & 6 others [2018] KEELRC 862 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause 2289 of 2015 (application dated 19th October 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/862/eng@2018-10-26

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