Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Petition 5 of 2020· [2025] KEELRC 393 (KLR)

Universe Freight Services Limited v Mwangi (Appeal E150 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 393 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
30 September 2021
2,226 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to strike out the workers' 2013 petitions, ruling that arguments requiring factual investigation cannot be raised as preliminary objections.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment by the Employment and Labour Relations Court addressed a preliminary objection and Notice of Motion application dated 25th November 2020, filed by the Attorney General seeking to strike out two consolidated petitions filed in 2013 by Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers and Nairobi Villas Limited. The Respondent argued that the suits were res judicata, being contradictory to orders made in Industrial Cause No. 2276 of 1993 between the same parties, and that the petitions were fatally defective for non-disclosure of material facts and breach of Section 44 of the Employment Act. The Applicants opposed the application, asserting that the causes of action were different and that the application did not meet the threshold for striking out pleadings under Order 2 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court, relying on the seminal case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd, found that the preliminary objection was not a pure point of law, as the grounds raised required ascertainment of facts such as the parties and issues in the prior proceedings. The Court also held that the alleged res judicata and non-disclosure of material facts were matters that could be raised and canvassed during the hearing of the suits. The Court distinguished the present case from Oraro vs Barasa Mbogo and found that the application and preliminary objection lacked merit. Both the preliminary objection dated 30th November 2020 and the Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2020 were dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection and application for striking out were based on pure points of law

Holding

The Court found that the grounds raised, including the alleged res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, were not pure points of law as they required ascertainment of facts.

Reasoning

The Court relied on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd which defined a preliminary objection as a matter argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. However, the 1st Respondent's grounds required the Court to ascertain facts such as the parties in the prior proceedings and the issues in dispute, which could only be determined through viva voce evidence. The Court therefore found the preliminary objection incompetent.

02

Whether the suits are res judicata with respect to the causes of action

Holding

The Court held that the claim of res judicata was not proven, as the Applicants had asserted that the causes of action were different and the parties were different.

Reasoning

The Court noted that the parties in ELRC No. 2276 of 1993 were different from the parties in the present suits, and that the present suits were filed in 2013 to address issues arising from different causes of action. The Court therefore found that the assertion of res judicata was not a pure point of law and could not be determined without ascertaining the facts.

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection can only be raised on a pure point of law which is not disputed, and if any facts have to be ascertained or disputed, it is not a pure point of law.
  • A party should not be driven from the judgment seat unless it is an abuse of the process of court, and a clear case of non-disclosure of material facts must be demonstrated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 30th November 2020 is found to have no merit and is dismissed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th November 2020 is found to be without merit and is also dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(a), 165, 258
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 3(1) and (2), 44
  • Trade Unions ActSections 16, 17
  • Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2007Not specified
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 226)Sections 3A, 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 2 rule 15, Order 7 rule 5
  • Judicature ActNot specified

Cases cited (1)

  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Anor vs Stephen Mutinda Mureka & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act read together with Section 3(1) and (2) of the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Universe Freight Services Limited v Mwangi (Appeal E150 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Petition 5 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/393/eng@2025-02-13

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