Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 2181 of 2014 (Ruling No. 7)· [2021] KEELRC 792 (KLR)

Trailink Group Limited v Kenya Long Distance Truck Drivers and Allied Workers Union (Cause 2181 of 2014) (Employment and Labour) [2021] KEELRC 792 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
8 October 2021
MOMaureen Onyango
3,212 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed Trailink's repeated attempt to freeze a Kshs 22 million award, warning that filing the same application again and again abuses the court process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is Ruling No. 7 in ELRC Cause No. 2181 of 2014, delivered by Onyango J on 8th October 2021. The claimant, Trailink Group Limited, applied by notice dated 14th August 2020 for stay of execution of the decree arising from the Court's ruling of 20th December 2019 (which adopted the union's computation of quantum for notice pay and compensation, directing issuance of a decree for the assessed amounts with interest), pending filing of an application for review; stay of the Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling of 7th August 2020 pending a reference; setting aside or variation of the taxation proceedings before Deputy Registrar Mutai; and remittal of the Bill of Costs dated 10th May 2018 to another Deputy Registrar. The Applicant alleged taxation conducted ex parte without notice and exposure to execution of over Kshs 22 million. The Respondent opposed, arguing there was nothing to stay, that the Court was functus officio since the Applicant had already appealed the relevant rulings, that a conditional stay had been granted in November 2017, that the application was delayed, misconceived and an abuse of process, and that the remedy against a taxing master's decision was a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The Applicant filed no submissions despite directions. The Court noted it had previously dismissed similar stay applications, including one dated 18th December 2020 dismissed on 5th March 2021, and one dismissed by Radido J on 16th February 2018. Holding the application to be an abuse of court process and devoid of merit, the Court dismissed it with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court should grant stay of execution of its ruling of 20th December 2019 and the Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling of 7th August 2020 pending review and reference

Holding

The application was dismissed as an abuse of court process and devoid of merit, the Court having previously dismissed similar stay applications in this matter.

Reasoning

The Court noted that it had already rendered several rulings on similar prayers, notably the ruling of 5th March 2021 dismissing a stay application dated 18th December 2020, and a ruling of 16th February 2018 by Radido J dismissing a similar stay application. The Applicant did not file submissions despite directions and being in court when directions were taken, suggesting it had abandoned the application. The Court agreed with the Respondent that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed it with costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who has already lost an application seeking the same stay orders and who files successive similar applications abuses the court process; such applications will be dismissed even if unopposed by submissions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 14th August 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 80
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderParagraph 11; also Paragraph (4) as quoted from B.M. Mungata
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (5)

  • Orero v Seko
    KLR 238
  • Kisya v Attorney General
    (1986) eKLR
  • B. M. Mungata & Co. Advocates v Peter Mwangi Wanjohi
    [2020] eKLR
  • Njagi Wanjeru & Co. Advocates v Ben Momanyi t/a Momanyi & Co Associates
    (2014) eKLR
  • Alfred Ochienq Opiyo t/a Ochienq Opiyo & Co Advocates v Export Hydro Pump & Services (Africa) Ltd
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the cause; application brought under the Civil Procedure Act (Section 80 invoked in submissions) and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trailink Group Limited v Kenya Long Distance Truck Drivers and Allied Workers Union (Cause 2181 of 2014)  (Employment and Labour) [2021] KEELRC 792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 2181 of 2014 (Ruling No. 7). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/792/eng@2021-10-08

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