Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause (Kisumu) – application dated November 18, 2022 within suit by the Claimant against the Respondents· [2023] KEELRC 411 (KLR)

Nyolo v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Cause 50 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 411 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 February 2023
1,086 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

#

A Kenyan court refused to strike out a worker's suit against a company that denies owing his old judgment award, so his case proceeds to trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Respondent moved the court by notice of motion dated November 18, 2022, seeking striking out of the Claimant's suit under Section 3 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Rules 17 and 38 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on grounds that the suit disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The Applicant relied on the earlier judgment of Byram J in Nakuru ELRC Cause No 161 of 2013, in which the Claimant was declared unfairly terminated and awarded Kshs 1,093,029.34, contending that only execution remained and that no employment relationship survived. The Claimant opposed, admitting the earlier suit but explaining that execution had failed because the 1st Respondent, though the admitted successor of the defunct Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited, declined to honour the decree on account of the difference in names. The Claimant sought a declaratory order identifying the party liable to satisfy the decree, invoking Section 12 of the ELRC Act and Corporate Insurance Company Ltd v Elias Okinyi Ofire. The court framed two issues: whether the suit disclosed a cause of action and whether the court was functus officio. Applying Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian 's', Chembe Katana Changi and DT Dobie, the court held the present claim was not a replica of the earlier suit, arose from non-honouring of the decree, showed a semblance of a cause of action curable by amendment, and merited trial. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit discloses a cause of action against the Respondents

Holding

The suit discloses a semblance of a cause of action and should not be struck out

Reasoning

The Claimant obtained a decree in Nakuru ELRC Cause No 161 of 2013 but cannot execute it because the employer adjudged liable (Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited) is defunct and the 1st Respondent, its admitted successor, disowns the decree on a difference in names. The court, applying DT Dobie, held that a suit showing a mere semblance of a cause of action, curable by amendment, ought to be allowed to go to trial.

p. 3
02

Whether the Court is functus officio over the matter

Holding

The Court is not functus officio; the present claim is different from the earlier suit

Reasoning

Although the issues in Nakuru ELRC Cause No 161 of 2013 were prosecuted and a judgment rendered, the instant suit is not an application for review or stay, and is not a replica of the earlier suit. It arises from the 1st Respondent's failure to honour the decree on the basis that it was not the respondent in the earlier cause, and the prayers differ from those in the previous suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit should not be summarily dismissed unless it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and cannot be cured by amendment
  • Functus officio is subject to exceptions including execution proceedings, review and stay applications

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Respondent/Applicant's application dated November 18, 2022 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimant/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 3
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRules 17 & 38
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42; Order 22 Rule 22

Cases cited (4)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian “s” v Caltex Oil(K) Limited
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Chembe Katana Changi v Ministry of Lands & Settlement & 4 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • DT Dobie & Co. (K) Limited v Muchina
    (1982) KLR
  • Corporate Insurance Company Ltd v Elias Okinyi Ofire
    Civil Appeal No 12 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (declaratory jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyolo v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Cause 50 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 411 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). ELRC Cause (Kisumu) – application dated November 18, 2022 within suit by the Claimant against the Respondents. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/411/eng@2023-02-16

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