Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

David Mwangi Mburu v Hotel Intercontinental Nairobi Ltd [2017] KEELRC 1457

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI CAUSE NO 775 OF 2012 DAVID MWANGI MBURU……………………………………….CLAIMANT VERSUS HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL NAIROBI LTD……………..RESPONDENT RULING 1. On 23rd July 2014, I dismissed the Respondent’s application seeking stay of proceedings in this cause pending the hearing and determination of HCCC No 367 of 2011: David Mburu Mwangi v KPMG Kenya. 2. When the main claim came up for hearing on 19th January 2017, the Court was notified that the Respondent had filed a notice of Preliminary Objection. The notice dated 12 th January 2017 is based on the ground that the Claimant has filed HCCC No 367 of 2011 against KPMG Kenya. 3. In his grounds of opposition filed on 17th January 2017 the Claimant states that the issue raised in the Preliminary Objection was the same one raised in the Notice of Motion dismissed on 23 rd July 2014 and is therefore res judicata. 4. In the ruling delivered on 23rd July 2014, the Court determined that HCCC No 367 of 2011 and the current claim are distinct and separate. This is the same issue being raised in the current Preliminary Objection. The only thing I will say is that having conclusively dealt with this issue way back in 2014, the Court cannot now reopen it. The issue is res judicata and the Objection is therefore overruled with costs to the Claimant. 5. I now direct the parties to set down the main claim for hearing on priority basis. 6. It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 LINNET NDOLO JUDGE Appearance: Mr. Keyonzo for the Claimant Mr. Kalungu for the Respondent

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.