Chepkoech & 3 others (Suing as Former Members of the 1st Respondent, for themselves on Behalf of 143 other Former Members of the Union) v Kenya Plantation and Agriculture Workers Union (KPAWU) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2870 (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 preliminary objection dated 1st September 2025 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on the ground of sub judice is merited
The preliminary objection is merited; the application dated 28th August 2025 is stayed/dismissed because the same prayers are pending before the Court of Appeal between the same parties
The court had granted a 30-day stay on 11th July 2025; the applicant appealed and filed a stay application in Nakuru Civil Application No. E136 of 2025, where Justice Mativo issued directions. The applicant then filed the identical application in the trial court on 28th August 2025, with the same parties and same prayers. Applying section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the doctrine of sub judice as explained in Speaker of the National Assembly v Senate, the court held the matter is sub judice and cannot proceed concurrently.
Whether a preliminary objection can dispose of the application as a pure point of law
Yes; the objection raised pure points of law (sub judice and abuse of process) capable of disposing of the application
Relying on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distribution Ltd, the court reiterated that a preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law which, even if raised outside the pleadings, can dispose of the entire suit. The sub judice issue, being founded on section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, satisfied that test.
Legal principles established
#- Where an identical stay application is pending before the Court of Appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a parallel application, and filing similar applications in different courts is impermissible
- The purpose of the sub judice rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits between the same parties over the same subject matter and avoid conflicting decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 1st September 2025 is granted as prayed
- 2.The Respondent/Applicant's application dated 28th August 2025 is dismissed on account of the sub judice rule
- 3.Each party will meet their costs of this application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; proceedings under the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Interim and substantive stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 11th July 2025 (and extension of the stay granted on 11th July 2025) pending the hearing and determination of the stay application before the Court of Appeal
The application is sub judice, as identical prayers are pending before the Court of Appeal in Nakuru Civil Application No. E136 of 2025, where directions have already been issued by the appellate court
Costs
Each party will meet their costs of this application.
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.
In view of the foregoing, the court holds the preliminary objection dated 1st September 2025 raises issues of law and is indeed merited. The same is therefore granted as prayed.
Each party will meet their costs of this application.
The current matter is sub judice, as the very same prayers were already requested in the subsequently lodged appeal in Nakuru the Civil Application No. E136 of 2025 and the Appellate court had given directions.
The court finds it unacceptable for the Applicant to file similar applications in different courts, while this court is reaffirming that it no longer has jurisdiction over the matter following the appeal in the Apex Court.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent party designations: the Union is referred to as 'Respondent/Applicant' and the former members as 'Petitioners/Respondents' in the same document, and in one passage the petitioners are called 'Petitioners/Applicants'
The judgment states 'this court is reaffirming that it no longer has jurisdiction over the matter following the appeal in the Apex Court', although the appeal described is pending before the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court
The date of filing of the Court of Appeal stay application is inconsistently given as 31st July 2025 and 1st August 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkoech & 3 others (Suing as Former Members of the 1st Respondent, for themselves on Behalf of 143 other Former Members of the Union) v Kenya Plantation and Agriculture Workers Union (KPAWU) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2870 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho ELRC No. E012 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2870/eng@2025-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.