Alphonse Mwangemi Munga & 10 others v African Safari Club Limited & 3 others;Erdemann Property Limited & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 395 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an attempt to overturn a 2013 property sale, ruling the same issues had already been decided and could not be relitigated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application offends the res judicata rule
Yes. The substratum of the application - the impugned consent orders of 11th December 2013 and their execution - was heard and finally determined in the review application of 30th January 2014, whose dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 314 of 2014, and in subsequent proceedings. All elements of res judicata were satisfied conjunctively.
The court applied the Supreme Court's formulation in IEBC v Maina Kiai, holding the elements must be satisfied conjunctively. The same parties, litigating under the same title, had raised the identical issue of execution of the impugned consent in a former suit before competent courts, and the Court of Appeal had finally determined the issue by upholding the ELRC decision. Once that was established, the court declined to delve into the remaining issues.
Whether the application met the threshold for review under Section 80 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Act
The court found it unnecessary to determine this issue given the finding on res judicata.
Having disposed of the application on the jurisdictional ground of res judicata, the court expressly declined to consider whether the applicants had demonstrated discovery of new and important matter, absence of inordinate delay, or other grounds for review; those issues were overtaken by the res judicata finding.
Whether the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought
No. The application having offended res judicata, the applicants were not entitled to any of the orders sought, including setting aside the consent orders, the auction sale, and the registration of the 1st Interested Party.
The entitlement to relief fell away with the res judicata finding. The court did not adjudicate the substantive allegations of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, violation of Articles 25(c) and 50(1), intermeddling under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, or the innocent purchaser claim raised by the 1st Interested Party.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata is a jurisdictional issue that must be considered at the earliest opportunity, and all its elements must be satisfied conjunctively before the doctrine is invoked
- Where a court of competent jurisdiction, such as the Court of Appeal, has upheld a decision finally determining an issue, a subsequent application raising the same issue between the same parties is barred by res judicata
Court orders
#- 1.The instant application dated 27th February 2020 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Costs awarded to the Respondents/Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, No. 20 of 2011 (Sections 2, 3, 12, 16, 20 and 29 invoked on jurisdiction; application under Sections 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alphonse Mwangemi Munga & 10 others v African Safari Club Limited & 3 others;Erdemann Property Limited & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 133N of 2008 (formerly Industrial Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/395/eng@2021-11-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.