Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedApplication dated 14/5/2020 (arising from Cause No. 189 of 2015)· [2021] KEELRC 2108 (KLR)

Jacob Ouma Nyambok & 12 others v Migori County Government & another [2021] KEELRC 2108 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 February 2021
MNMathews N. Nduma
954 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's fresh bid for permanent employment because the same dispute had already been finally decided, showing courts won't relitigate settled matters.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by Mathews N. Nduma, Judge, on 18th February 2021, determined a notice of motion dated 14/5/2020 in which the claimant sought orders directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to employ him on permanent and pensionable terms after long service on casual terms, citing contempt and default sanctions and preservatory orders. The respondent opposed the application through a preliminary objection and a replying affidavit, contending that the subject matter was res judicata, having been heard and determined in Cause No. 189 of 2015, whose implementation report was adopted as an order of the court on 20th March 2018 pursuant to a recorded consent, and that the orders had been implemented. The court applied the Court of Appeal decision in Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 others, setting out the five conjunctive elements of res judicata, and found all prerequisites satisfied: the same subject matter, the same parties litigating under the same title, a competent court, and a final determination. The court further noted the absence of any prayer seeking an interim order pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The application was dismissed both for lack of a proper prayer for interim relief and as an abuse of the process of the court, being res judicata. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application and the suit. The ruling was delivered online under the COVID-19 measures.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application is barred by res judicata

Holding

The application is res judicata; all five elements are satisfied as the same subject matter, parties and title were finally determined in Cause No. 189 of 2015 on 20/3/2018.

Reasoning

The court found the dispute deals with the same subject matter as Cause No. 189 of 2015, between the same parties, and that all the prerequisites of the plea of res judicata were satisfied. The suit was held to be an abuse of the process of the court since all the issues in dispute had been determined on 20th March 2018 upon adoption of the implementation report as an order of the court.

p. 2
02

Whether the notice of motion contains a competent prayer for interim relief

Holding

There is no prayer on the face of the notice of motion seeking an interim order pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Reasoning

The court observed that although the application sought preservatory orders and contempt sanctions, no prayer sought an interim order pending hearing and determination of the suit. The application was therefore dismissed both for lack of any proper prayer for interim relief and for being res judicata and an abuse of process.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The five elements of res judicata must be satisfied conjunctively, not disjunctively, for the bar to be upheld

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 14/5/2020 is dismissed both for lack of a proper prayer for interim relief and for being res judicata and an abuse of the process of the court
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application and the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 1

Cases cited (1)

  • Independent Electoral and Boundies Commission –vs- Maina Kiai & 5 others
    Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017 [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the claimant/respondent dispute; interlocutory application within Cause No. 189 of 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jacob Ouma Nyambok & 12 others v Migori County Government & another [2021] KEELRC 2108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Application dated 14/5/2020 (arising from Cause No. 189 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2108/eng@2021-02-18

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