Patrick Kariithi Wahome & 114 others v County Government of Laikipia & another;Transitional Authority & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court let a delaying party raise one legal objection before judgment, but made it pay costs for years of indolence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should review its orders of 20th November, 2019 closing the respondent's case
The court varied the orders, but only to allow the single preliminary objection to be heard; the respondents' history of indolence disentitled them from anything more
The judgment chronicles repeated adjournments, non-attendance and two occasions (7th March 2019 and 17th December 2019) on which the respondents arrested delivery of judgment. The matter had taken over seven years. Continued delay was found unjustified, but the objection raised a question of law under section 77 of the County Government Act which the court elected to allow to be urged as a condition-laden indulgence.
Timing of preliminary objections
Preliminary objections on points of law may be raised at any time before judgment, but should be raised at the earliest opportunity
The court applied the general rule from Republic v Chief Registrar of the Judiciary ex parte Riley Services Ltd and Panfield Investment Ltd v Sisibo Luxury Shuttle Ltd. Holding onto a valid objection from 2013 until efforts to arrest judgment failed was held to be contrary to the aid of justice, yet the objection concerned application of section 77 of the County Government Act and was allowed.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection on a point of law may be raised at any time before judgment, but should be raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid waste of time; a party who withholds a valid objection while attempting to arrest judgment is not aided by the court
Court orders
#- 1.The court varied its orders of 20th November, 2019 closing the respondent's case and directing delivery of judgment
- 2.The respondents were allowed to urge the Notice of Preliminary Objections dated 25th June, 2019 first before further directions on the due judgment
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent review power of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own interlocutory orders (application dated 6th December, 2019 seeking review of orders of 20th November, 2019)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patrick Kariithi Wahome & 114 others v County Government of Laikipia & another;Transitional Authority & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1771/eng@2020-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.