Macharia v Council of Governors & 48 others; Local Authorities Provident Fund (lapfund) & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E047 of 2021) [2021] KEELRC 2308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A county worker's bid to stop the Council of Governors halting pension remittances failed because the same dispute was already before another judge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition and Application are caught by the sub judice doctrine
Yes. The issues are directly and substantially in issue in consolidated petitions pending before the Principal Judge, so this suit must be stayed and the Application dismissed
The court explained the sub judice rule and its purpose: to prevent multiplicity of suits over the same subject matter and to avoid conflicting decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction. Where two or more cases between the same parties raise the same subject matter, the later-filed matter ought to be stayed pending determination of the earlier suit. The parties were similar save for the Petitioner, and multiple consolidated suits were pending before the Principal Judge.
Whether the conservatory and injunctive orders sought should be granted
No; the Application was dismissed, the sub judice objection being determinative
Although the Applicant argued ultra vires, lack of consultation and statutory obligation to remit contributions under Section 8(1) of the Local Authorities Provident Fund Act, the court did not reach the merits because the sub judice doctrine required the suit to be stayed in favour of the pending consolidated petitions before the Principal Judge.
Legal principles established
#- The sub judice rule bars courts from trying an issue pending before another court between the same parties, and a later-filed suit on the same subject matter should be stayed pending determination of the earlier suit
- The purpose of the sub judice rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits and conflicting decisions
Court orders
#- 1.The Application is dismissed
- 2.The suit is stayed pending determination of the Petitions and causes before the Principal Judge
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; Petition filed in the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Macharia v Council of Governors & 48 others; Local Authorities Provident Fund (lapfund) & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E047 of 2021) [2021] KEELRC 2308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2308/eng@2021-11-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.