Ombongi v Kisii National Polytechnic & 4 others (Petition E031 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petition is res judicata given Kisii CMELRC No. E015 of 2021 and No. E019 of 2022
- 2.Whether the Petition meets the precision/pleading threshold in Anarita Karimi v Republic
- 3.Whether the Petition, mixing employment termination claims with challenges to appointments, is an abuse of court process
Key legal issues
#Res judicata
Plea fails; prior causes were withdrawn and struck out, not decided on the merits
The applicant's earlier suits, Kisii CMELRC No. E015 of 2021 and No. E019 of 2022, were respectively withdrawn before hearing and struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act requires that the matter in the former suit was heard and finally decided. Those elements were absent, so the plea of res judicata could not succeed.
Constitutional pleading threshold (Anarita Karimi)
Failure of specificity not determinative against a petitioner in person
The Respondents argued the Petition merely cited Articles 25, 27, 28, 29, 40, 41, 43, 47 and 50 without showing how rights were infringed. Relying on the epistolary jurisdiction under Article 22(3), the Court held that lack of specificity by a petitioner acting in person ought not be determinative of the Petition at that stage.
Multiplicity/mixing of causes of action
Petition struck out as an abuse of process for joining employment termination claims with constitutional challenges to appointments
Unfair termination disputes must be brought under the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, the ELRC Act and the Employment Act, 2007, and raised no constitutional issue justifying the petition route. The challenges to the appointments of the 3rd–5th Respondents are anchored on the Constitution and other statutes. Joining the two streams of claims was improper and abusive, warranting striking out.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act requires the former suit to have been heard and finally decided on the merits; withdrawn suits and suits struck out for lack of jurisdiction do not sustain the plea
- An in-person petitioner's failure to plead constitutional violations with specificity need not be fatal, given the epistolary jurisdiction under Article 22(3)
- Mixing ordinary employment termination claims with constitutional/statutory challenges to public appointments in one petition is an abuse of process
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is struck out with liberty granted to the Petitioner to commence distinct causes of action
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22(3) of the Constitution (epistolary jurisdiction); Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Entire Petition (all claims including unfair termination and challenges to appointments of 3rd–5th Respondents)
Mixed causes of action pursued together amounting to abuse of court process
Costs
Each party to bear own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Causes were not heard and determined on the merits and, therefore, all the elements of res judicata as envisaged under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act have not been met.
Because of the epistolary jurisdiction in Article 22(3) of the Constitution, this Court is of the view that the failure to plead with specificity the alleged violations by the Petitioner acting in person ought not to be determinative of the Petition.
Arising from the above, the Petition is struck out with liberty granted to the Petitioner to commence distinct causes of action challenging the fairness of the termination of his employment, and the appointment of the Respondents within the law.
Each party to bear own costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ombongi v Kisii National Polytechnic & 4 others (Petition E031 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (Kisii; ELRC) – as stated in judgment, filed 22 November 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/493/eng@2024-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.