Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition 117 of 2020 [ELRC Petition E015/2020]· [2022] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

Kamau Mwaura Joab & 10 others (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of other Petitioners) v Mediamax Network Limited [2022] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 April 2022
JRJames Rika
904 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners applied by notice dated 5th July 2021 for review and setting aside of the Court's ruling of 25th June 2021, which had marked their Petition as settled in reliance on consent orders issued on 10th June 2020 by Hon. Justice Ongaya in related Petition No. 59 of 2020. They argued that three distinct, unconsolidated Petitions existed, so the settled mark should not have applied across the board. The application, supported by the affidavit of the 1st Petitioner Kamau Mwaura Joab, was opposed by the Respondent's CEO Ken Ngaruiya, who explained the redundancy dispute had been consensually settled in Petition 59 of 2020. The application was decided on affidavits and submissions. The Court noted prior directions on identifying all Petitioners and filing clear authority had not been met, and that the Petition bore two registration numbers. It found the facts in all three Petitions identical, the named Petitioners having also been Petitioners in Petition 59 of 2020. Their grievances related to implementation of the consent orders, and the proper course was to seek review or interpretation in that Petition; filing a fresh Petition in pursuit of the orders already made was an abuse of process. The Court rejected the argument that authority requirements were dispensable formalities in constitutional litigation, stressing individual employees' contracts and voluntary participation must be clear. Accordingly, the application for review was declined with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 25th June 2021 marking the Petition as settled should be reviewed

Holding

The application for review was declined

Reasoning

The present Petitioners were also Petitioners in Petition No. 59 of 2020, where the same dispute over terminal redundancy was settled consensually on 10th June 2020. Their grievances concern implementation of that consent, which should be raised in that Petition by way of review or interpretation, not through a fresh Petition. Multiple petitions against the same employer over the same dispute amount to abuse of process, and nothing new justified disturbing the orders on record.

p. 2
02

Whether the requirement of authority from represented Petitioners is a legal formality to be discouraged in constitutional litigation

Holding

The Court rejected the argument that filing proper authority is a dispensable formality

Reasoning

Parties must be identified and shown to be in court voluntarily since rights and liabilities attach to parties. At the heart of the dispute are individual contracts of employment, so individual employees must be known from the beginning. Some Petitioners had withdrawn after accepting re-employment, and the possibility of representation by the Kenya Union of Journalists required clarification of who the named Petitioners represented and authority placed on the record.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing a fresh petition in pursuit of orders already made in a settled dispute is an abuse of the process of the Court; the proper course is to seek review or interpretation of the consent orders in the original petition.
  • Parties to litigation, particularly in employment disputes concerning individual contracts, must be clearly identified and shown to be before the court voluntarily with clear authority.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review, filed by the Petitioners, dated 5th July 2021 is declined
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (petition proceedings)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamau Mwaura Joab & 10 others (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of other Petitioners) v Mediamax Network Limited [2022] KEELRC 291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition 117 of 2020 [ELRC Petition E015/2020]. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/291/eng@2022-04-22

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