Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherStatement of Claim dated March 1, 2023 (Notice of Motion dated April 17, 2023)· [2023] KEELRC 1874 (KLR)

Chumba v Wells Fargo Limited (Cause E171 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1874 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 July 2023
NMNzioki Wa Makau
3,339 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court threw out a house allowance claim because it should have been raised in an earlier case between the same parties.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent/applicant filed a notice of motion under Rules 13(5) and 17(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking that the claimant's memorandum of claim be struck out on the ground that the suit was res judicata. The claimant had earlier sued the respondent in Nairobi ELRC No. E004 of 2021 over alleged unfair labour practices and unfair termination on account of redundancy; that suit was dismissed in its entirety by Rika J. on January 31, 2023. The claimant then instituted the present suit claiming house allowance allegedly arising from the same employment relationship. The respondent argued the house allowance claim ought to have been raised in the earlier suit, that litigating in instalments is an abuse of process, and that the claimant had conceded in the earlier case that he had no further claims. The claimant countered that the issue of house allowance was never directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and that the res judicata criteria were not met. The court applied section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the extended doctrine of res judicata as explained in Henderson v Henderson and IEBC v Maina Kiai, holding that a matter which might and ought to have been raised in the former suit is deemed directly and substantially in issue. The court dismissed the claimant's suit with costs, holding the claim for house allowance barred by res judicata.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's claim for house allowance is barred by section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (res judicata)

Holding

The claim is res judicata because the entitlement to house allowance arose from the same employment relationship and ought to have been raised in ELRC No. E004 of 2021, which was heard and finally determined between the same parties litigating under the same title.

Reasoning

The court applied section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the explanation thereto, adopting the extended doctrine of res judicata per Henderson v Henderson as cited by the Court of Appeal in Mburu Kinyua v Gachini Tuti and UAP Provincial Insurance Co Ltd v Michael John Beckett. Parties must bring forward their whole case; a matter which might have been brought forward by reasonable diligence is deemed directly and substantially in issue. Negligence or inadvertence of an advocate is not a special circumstance excusing omission. The court also noted the claimant had conceded in the earlier judgment that he had no further claims.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The practical effect of the res judicata doctrine is a complete estoppel against any suit that runs afoul of it, and it cannot be circumvented even by consent of the parties because the court itself is debarred from entertaining such a suit.
  • A matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in a former suit is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in that suit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's suit is dismissed for being res judicata
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRules 13(5) and 17(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act, cap 21 Laws of KenyaSection 7 (and its explanation)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(a)
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41 and 31

Cases cited (10)

  • Joseph Chumba v Wells Fargo Limited
    Nairobi ELRC No. E004 of 2021
  • Mburu Kinyua v Gachini Tuti
    [1976-80] 1 KLR 790
  • UAP Provincial Insurance Company Ltd v Michael John Beckett
    [2013] eKLR
  • Henderson v Henderson
  • Bi-Mach Engineers Limited v James Kahoro Mwangi
    [2011] eKLR
  • Brar v Wareng Quarry & another
    [1978] eKLR
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • William Koross v Hezekiah Kiptoo Komen & 4 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Lal Chand v Radha Kishan
    AIR 1977 SC 789
  • MacDougall v Knight
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Rules 13(5) and 17(1); section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, cap. 21; inherent powers of the Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chumba v Wells Fargo Limited (Cause E171 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Statement of Claim dated March 1, 2023 (Notice of Motion dated April 17, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1874/eng@2023-07-24

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