AWW & another (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Paul Weru Maina - Deceased) v Satellite Options and Solutions Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E371 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3763 (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 Originating Motion dated 25th September 2025 is res judicata
- 2.Whether the Originating Motion should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Whether the Originating Motion dated 25th September 2025 is res judicata
It is not res judicata; the orders sought in the Originating Motion differ from those in the earlier lower court application.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act requires that the matter directly and substantially in issue have been heard and finally decided previously. Comparing the Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2025 in the subordinate court with the impugned Originating Motion, the court found the parties and subject matter identical but the orders sought different, and the adoption issue was never conclusively determined previously.
Whether the Originating Motion should be struck out
Yes - it is fatally defective and incompetent, overtaken by events, frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court.
The Director's compensation assessment of Kshs. 4,141,920 was never challenged and the employer deposited the whole award with the Public Trustee; the subordinate court upheld the Director's distribution. Rule 69 contemplates adoption only for enforcement, so where the employer has paid, nothing remains to enforce. Further, the invocation of the court's jurisdiction by Originating Motion rather than Notice of Motion was procedurally incompetent.
Legal principles established
#- Adoption and enforcement of an award under Rule 69 of the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 is available only for enforcement purposes; where the award is unchallenged and the employer has complied, an adoption/execution application is frivolous and an abuse of process.
- Applications for adoption of awards under Rule 69 must be brought by Notice of Motion, not Originating Motion; an Originating Motion for that purpose is defective and incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Originating Motion dated 25th September 2025 is struck out with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 69
Relief refused
#Respondent's application for adoption of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services' award as judgment and issuance of a decree for execution against the employer
The employer had already complied with the award by depositing the full compensation with the Public Trustee; the application was overtaken by events, frivolous, an abuse of process, and procedurally defective as it was brought by Originating Motion instead of Notice of Motion
Costs
The Originating Motion dated 25th September 2025 was struck out with costs (costs to the Applicant as sought in the striking-out Motion).
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.
I have found that the Originating Motion is not re judicata. However, I have found that it is fatally defective and incompetent. It is also overtaken by events and devoid of merits since the employer has complied with the decision of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services. Consequently I strike out the Originating Motion dated 25th September 2025 with costs.
Filing an application for adoption of the award and seeking a decree for execution when the employer has released the whole award, like in this case, amounts to frivolity and abuse of the process of the court.
The procedure provided under Rule 69 above is filing of a Notice of Motion and not an Originating Motion. Consequently, the Originating Motion is defective and incompetent.
Whereas the parties and the subject matter are the same, the orders sought are not the same.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the previous subordinate court application stated inconsistently as 24th February 2025 and 24th March 2025
Spelling of 'res judicata' rendered inconsistently as 're judicata' in the conclusion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "AWW & another (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Paul Weru Maina - Deceased) v Satellite Options and Solutions Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E371 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3763 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application E371 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3763/eng@2025-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.