James Okello Ouma & 4 others v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited; Rift Valley Workers Union (K) & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1395 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a union's bid to join a concluded case and recover money from an advocate, ruling it had no jurisdiction and the union no standing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Union and the Advocate should be enjoined in the suit as interested party and 2nd respondent respectively, post-judgment
- 2.Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application, including complaints against an advocate
- 3.Whether the Union has locus standi to institute the application
- 4.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Whether post-judgment joinder of an interested party and a 2nd respondent should be allowed
Joinder post-judgment requires good and satisfactory grounds; the Union failed to identify any stake or interest and the application was an abuse of process.
The court applied the tests for necessary parties and for interested parties from the cited authorities. Because the matter was post-judgment, with no appeal or review pending, the court was functus officio. The claimants, as right-holders, had already chosen representation by counsel on record, and the union could not usurp that choice. No membership or inability of claimants to act was demonstrated, making the application speculative and an abuse of the court process.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against an advocate
The court lacks jurisdiction; complaints against advocates at first instance belong to the LSK disciplinary tribunal or the Advocate Complaints Commission.
The preliminary objection on jurisdiction succeeded to the extent that complaints between advocate and client cannot be addressed by this court. The proper forum is the regulatory body - the Law Society of Kenya or the Advocate Complaints Commission - and the complaint should ordinarily be brought by the client, here the claimants, not a third party union.
Whether the Union has locus standi
The Union lacks standing to move the court post-judgment on behalf of claimants who are represented by counsel.
The Union's averments were speculative and devoid of evidence. It failed to show the claimants were members or unable to act for themselves. The right-holders had already been heard and judgment delivered; whatever grievance exists against the advocate lies elsewhere, not before this court. Standing under Article 22 or 258 was also unavailable as this is not a constitutional petition.
Legal principles established
#- An interested party must identify a stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings and cannot enter post-judgment proceedings without demonstrating such interest; a union cannot usurp the claimants' choice of legal representation.
- This court has no jurisdiction at first instance to entertain complaints against advocates; such complaints lie with the LSK disciplinary tribunal or the Advocate Complaints Commission.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th December, 2020 is in abuse of the court process and is dismissed
- 2.Mr Munayi Opondo Isaac shall personally bear the costs due to the Advocate, Nicholas Sumba, at Ksh.30,000
- 3.Those costs shall be paid within the next 30 days, after which interest at court rates shall accrue
- 4.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February, 2021 is found to have merit to the extent that the court lacks jurisdiction to address complaints between advocate and client
- 5.The intended interested party, Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K), lacks the requisite standing to move the court as done
- 6.Costs awarded to N.O. Sumba & Co. Advocates and assessed at Ksh.30,000
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution read with the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 (invoked by the applicant; the court held it lacked jurisdiction over advocate/client complaints)
Relief refused
#Joinder of the Union as interested party and of N.O. Sumba & Co. Advocates as 2nd respondent
Post-judgment joinder without demonstrated stake or interest; the claimants are the right-holders and are already represented; the court is functus officio
Direction that the Advocate release Ksh.3,735,633 and interest to the grievants through the Union
The court lacks jurisdiction to address advocate/client complaints; the point of first instance is the LSK or the Advocate Complaints Commission
Costs
Mr Munayi Opondo Isaac to personally bear costs of Ksh.30,000 due to Nicholas Sumba, payable within 30 days with interest at court rates thereafter; costs awarded to N.O. Sumba & Co. Advocates assessed at Ksh.30,000.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a. application dated 24th December, 2020 is in abuse of the court process and is hereby dismissed;
d. Objections made vide Notice dated 12th February, 2021 are found with merit to the extent that the court lacks jurisdiction to address complaints between advocate/client;
the intended interested party, Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) lack the requisite standing to move the court as herein done; and
Such representation subsists and the union cannot usurp that choice of legal representation under the guise of the Labour Relations Act, 2007.
These averments are speculative, devoid of evidence, and should never have seen the light of day.
Even where the claimants have any complaint(s) against the attending advocate, the point of first instance is the regulatory body, the LSK or the Advocate Complaints Commission.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the judgment's dates: the judgment is said to have been delivered on 13th June, 2018 in one passage but 13th August, 2018 in two later passages.
The name of the intended interested party is inconsistently rendered: 'Rift Valley Workers Union (K)' at the outset but 'Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K)' in the final orders.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Okello Ouma & 4 others v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited; Rift Valley Workers Union (K) & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on Notice of Motion dated 24th December, 2020 and Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1395/eng@2021-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.