Omido v Secretary, Board of Management, Namundera Mixed Secondary School (Petition 31 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3036 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a delayed review application, warning that repeatedly litigating settled issues risks being declared a vexatious litigant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the requirements for review under Rule 33 were met
The Petitioner failed to establish any of the grounds for review
The review jurisdiction is governed by Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, requiring newly discovered evidence, an error on the face of the record, or sufficient reason. The Petitioner showed none of these. The further affidavit annexing a Kakamega High Court order did not amount to newly discovered evidence meriting review, and no error or sufficient reason was demonstrated.
Whether the application was filed after inordinate delay
The three-month unexplained delay was inordinate
The Petitioner filed the application three months after the Ruling sought to be reviewed and offered no explanation for the delay despite the Respondents raising the objection. Delay must be assessed case by case, and without explanation the Court found the delay inordinate.
Whether there was a live dispute warranting review
There was no live or substantive dispute pending
The Petition had been dismissed in 2018 and the substantive application dismissed on 1 February 2023. Ordering the Respondents to supply minutes of a meeting would serve no legal purpose where the underlying legal action was no longer before the Court for determination.
Whether the litigation was vexatious and abusive
The application bordered on abuse of court process
The Petitioner had persistently filed application after application since the Petition's dismissal in March 2018, despite a warning in the Ruling of 4 October 2018 and a High Court order of 19 November 2021 barring further applications without leave. The Court warned the Petitioner he risked being declared a vexatious litigant.
Legal principles established
#- Delay in applying for review must be assessed case by case and unexplained delay of three months constitutes inordinate delay
- A party who constantly litigates on issues already determined abuses the court process and risks being declared a vexatious litigant
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 5 May 2023 is dismissed with further costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omido v Secretary, Board of Management, Namundera Mixed Secondary School (Petition 31 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3036 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3036/eng@2023-11-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.