Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 641 of 2018· [2022] KEELRC 892 (KLR)

Geoffrey Oruko Andande &3 others v Lalji Bhimji Sanghani [2022] KEELRC 892 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 February 2022
JRJames Rika
682 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's claim for the second time, ruling you cannot refile an identical case after losing the first one.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants previously sued L.B. Sanghani Flats/Estate in Cause Number 975 of 2015 seeking compensation for unfair termination and terminal dues. That claim was heard in full and dismissed by a judgment dated 28th February 2018 on the ground that the named respondent was not a legal entity capable of being sued, with the Court observing that the Claimants had failed to amend their pleadings to bring in an entity capable of being sued. The Claimants then instituted the present claim against the proprietor, Lalji Bhimji Sanghani, on identical facts and seeking identical remedies. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act alleging the claim was res judicata, which the parties agreed would be determined on written submissions. The Court, per James Rika, Judge, sustained the objection. It held that res judicata is a sacrosanct principle of universal application to civil and specialized jurisdictions, applying the three-element test from Paul Seki Nzau & 27 Others v. Laico Regency Hotel: identical claims, party identity or privity, and a final decision on the merits. The Claimants, who were represented by counsel in the previous suit, had the opportunity to correct their pleadings and sue the person rather than his property but did not do so. The law does not permit fresh claims until a party gets it right, and the Respondent deserved protection from being vexed twice. The preliminary objection was sustained, the claim dismissed, and costs awarded to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether res judicata bars a fresh claim against the correct respondent after dismissal of an identical claim against a non-existent entity

Holding

Yes - the current claim is a replica of the dismissed claim and is barred by res judicata

Reasoning

The Claimants sued L.B. Sanghani Flats/Estate, a non-legal entity, in Cause 975 of 2015, which was heard on merit and dismissed. The Respondent testified in that suit that the wrong entity had been sued, yet the Claimants failed to amend their pleadings to sue him personally. Replacing only the name of the respondent does not avoid Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Court held that re-litigation of claims that could have been litigated in the first suit is barred, and the Respondent merits protection from being vexed twice.

p. 2
02

Whether Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act binds the E&LRC

Holding

It does; res judicata is of universal application to specialized jurisdictions

Reasoning

Contrary to the Claimants' assertion, the Court held res judicata is not limited to civil proceedings but applies to claims in civil and specialized jurisdictions alike, protecting parties and court process from abuse.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Res judicata applies universally to claims in both civil and specialized jurisdictions, including the E&LRC
  • Res judicata has three elements: prior litigation with identical claims, identity or privity of parties, and a final decision on the merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is sustained, and Claim dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Claim to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7

Cases cited (1)

  • Paul Seki Nzau & 27 Others V. Laico Regency Hotel
    [2014] e-KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims; preliminary objection under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Oruko Andande &3 others v Lalji Bhimji Sanghani [2022] KEELRC 892 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 641 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/892/eng@2022-02-08

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