AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause (as stated in judgment; two applications dated 18/7/2019 and 19/7/2019 in the main claim)· [2020] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)
Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Union Workers v Galot Estate Kiambu & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Two interlocutory applications came before the Employment and Labour Relations Court: the 2nd Respondent's application dated 18/7/2019 and the 1st and 3rd Respondents' application dated 19/7/2019, each seeking a stay of proceedings in the main claim pending the hearing of the applications and pending intended appeals against the court's ruling of 9/7/2019, which had dismissed a preliminary objection and struck out the 3rd Respondent. The applicants contended the ruling contravened Section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act and the separate legal personality doctrine (Salmon v Salmon), that the intended appeals were arguable, and that proceeding would render the appeals nugatory, cause substantial loss and waste judicial time. They relied on Blue Shield Insurance v Gachiri Kariuki, Re Global Tours and Travel, Ngaga Enterprises v Opande and Norlake Investments. The Claimant opposed, arguing the ruling merely required the question of the Claimant's locus standi and recognition to be tested at the main hearing with evidence, that no substantial loss would flow, and that staying proceedings would prejudice grievants whose right of association was in issue; the applicants had also not sought stay in Civil Appeals 362 and 389 of 2019. In a short disposition, Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that having filed Notices of Appeal and proceeded to the Court of Appeal, the applicants should seek stay from that court. She declined the orders, directed the main claim to proceed unless otherwise ordered by the Court of Appeal, and awarded costs in the cause.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the trial court should stay its own proceedings pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
Holding
The court declined the stay, holding that once the applicants had proceeded to the Court of Appeal, that court alone could grant the orders sought
Reasoning
The court noted its ruling of 9/7/2019 had merely directed that the issue of the Claimant's locus be determined at the main hearing with evidence. The applicants had filed Notices of Appeal and were pursuing the matter in the Court of Appeal. The judge reasoned that having elected that forum, the applicants should seek stay there, and staying the claim would only delay resolution of the main dispute, including the grievants' rights of association.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- Where a party has already filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against an interlocutory ruling, the trial court should decline to stay its own proceedings, as the appellate court is the proper forum for such orders
Court orders
#- 1.The applications dated 18/7/2019 and 19/7/2019 seeking stay of proceedings are declined
- 2.The main claim to proceed unless otherwise ordered by the Court of Appeal
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over stay of proceedings in a claim before it; intended appeals lie to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeals 362 of 2019 and 389 of 2019)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Union Workers v Galot Estate Kiambu & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELRC Cause (as stated in judgment; two applications dated 18/7/2019 and 19/7/2019 in the main claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1427/eng@2020-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.