Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause (Nyeri), Application and Preliminary Objection dated 23rd November 2020· [2021] KEELRC 1109 (KLR)

David Mwangi & 349 others v Council of Governors & 5 others; Kenya National Union of Nurses & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1109 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 July 2021
4,346 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court allowed 350 Murang'a nurses' salary claim to proceed, ruling it was not a repeat of earlier cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondents filed a preliminary objection and notice of application, both dated 23rd November 2020, seeking dismissal of the claimants' suit - a claim by 350 nurses for salary arrears for June to October 2017 withheld after the nurses' national strike - on grounds of res judicata, frivolousness, vexatiousness and abuse of process. The 3rd to 6th Respondents and the 1st Respondent relied on section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, contending the claim had been determined in Nyeri ELRC Cause No.111 of 2018, brought by the 1st Interested Party union on behalf of its members, and that subsequent litigation in Nairobi ELRC Petition No.98 of 2019 and consolidated Petition No.5 of 2019 had been dismissed or withdrawn. The 1st Respondent further denied being the claimants' employer. The claimants, relying on Mukhisa Biscuits, countered that the objection was not a pure point of law, that the parties in the prior suits differed, and that the salary issue was never finally determined; they invoked the return-to-work agreement of 2nd November 2017 signed by the 1st Respondent on behalf of county governments. Justice D.K. Njagi Marete agreed with the claimants. He found the parties and subject matter distinct from the earlier suits, held that the salary claim had not been litigated to finality, and concluded the preliminary objection required factual analysis and was therefore not a pure point of law. He dismissed both the preliminary objection and the application, with costs to the claimants. The main claim remains pending for hearing and determination.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The defence of res judicata fails because neither the parties nor the subject matter of this suit replicate those of the previous suits, and the salaries claim was never heard and determined to finality

Reasoning

The court scrutinised the pleadings in the cited former suits and posed three questions: who were the parties, what was the subject matter, and whether the current claimants appear in the prior suits. It found the current claimants were not replicated in the previous suits, which were litigated by the 1st Interested Party as union, and that the issue of payment of the June-October 2017 salaries was not determined in Nyeri ELRC No.111 of 2018.

p. 6
02

Validity of the preliminary objection

Holding

The preliminary objection is unsustainable because it requires factual analysis and is not a pure point of law

Reasoning

Applying Mukhisa Biscuits, the court held that determining the objection would require establishing who the parties to the earlier suits were and the subject matter in dispute, matters of fact and evidence. A preliminary objection cannot be raised where facts have to be ascertained, and therefore the objection and the supporting application both fail.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Res judicata requires identity of parties and that the subject matter was directly and substantially in issue and finally decided in a former suit
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and cannot be raised where facts require ascertainment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 23rd November 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.The application dated 23rd November 2020 is dismissed
  3. 3.Costs of the applications awarded to the Claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Code (Civil Procedure Act)section 7
  • Intergovernmental Relations Act, No.2 of 2012section 20
  • County Governments Actsection 6(4)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Actsection 3
  • Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 27, 41, 41(2)(d), 47, 159

Cases cited (11)

  • George Omondi & Anor v National Bank of Kenya & 2 others
    Civil Suit No.958 of 2001
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Anor v Cabinet Secretary for Transport & Infrastructure & 3 Others
    Civil Appeal No.42 of 2014
  • Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Work v Pwani University & another
    Cause 110 of 2014
  • Mukhisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) EA 696
  • Nancy Mwangi T/A Worthlin Marketers v Airtel Networks (K) Ltd (formerly Celtel Kenya Ltd) & 2 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kamunye & others v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd
    (1971) E.A 263
  • Mwangi Njangu v Meshack Mbogo Wambugu
    null
  • Peter Mutai & 282 others v County Government of Elgeyo Marakwet
    ELRC No.233 of 2018
  • Combe v Combe
    1951 All England Law Reports 766
  • Alex Miloko v Nakumatt Holdings Limited
    Cause No.253 of 2014
  • Considered Workers Union v Moi University and Rivatex E.A Ltd
    Industrial Cause No.1981 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, 2010; Employment and Labour Relations Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Mwangi & 349 others v Council of Governors & 5 others; Kenya National Union of Nurses & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause (Nyeri), Application and Preliminary Objection dated 23rd November 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1109/eng@2021-07-26

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