Employment and Labour Relations Court
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the applicant's motion for mandamus to compel payment from Embu County Government and its officials, as the applicant failed to obtain the required certificate of order under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which mandates that 21 days after judgment or taxation of costs, a certificate must be issued before enforcement. The court found the applicant only provided a judgment and consent agreement but not the necessary certificates, making the application premature and without costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection to the applicant’s motion for contempt proceedings, ruling that the motion was procedurally defective because it sought to punish public officials for contempt of court without first obtaining judicial review proceedings and an order of mandamus to compel compliance with the court decree. The court held that contempt proceedings against public officers for failure to comply with court orders require prior judicial review and mandamus to establish the officials’ duty to act, as per the precedent in Republic v The Attorney General & Another Exparte James Alfred Koroso (2013) eKLR. The motion was struck with costs for failing to follow the correct procedural steps under the Government Proceedings Act 2022 and Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court addressed an application for contempt against county government officials for allegedly disobeying a court order dated 30th July 2024. The applicant sought orders including reinstatement of 188 members, commitment to jail, and removal from office. The court found the application premature and defective as it failed to comply with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which requires specific procedural steps before enforcing court orders against government entities. The court dismissed the application with costs, noting that contempt proceedings against individual government officers require adherence to statutory execution procedures.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the ex-parte motion seeking contempt of court orders against the 2nd Respondent for allegedly disregarding the court's April 27, 2023 orders. The motion claimed the 2nd Respondent was in contempt by prosecuting Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021, which sought enforcement of the 1st Respondent's March 3, 2021 decision. The court found the motion was overtaken by events as the court had already ruled on the Misc. Application on July 26, 2024, rendering the contempt proceedings without merit. The court dismissed the motion with costs, noting the 2nd Respondent's actions were not contemptuous as the court had previously resolved the matter.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court granted leave to appeal out of time for the applicant Francis Isaiah Simiyu against the judgment of the Magistrate Court in Nyeri CMELRC Cause No. E031 of 2023. The applicant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to an honest mistake by counsel, not deliberate, and the delay was not inordinate. The court found the applicant met the legal threshold for extension of time, including no undue delay, a reasonable explanation for the delay, and no prejudice to the respondent. The court ordered the appeal to be filed within 30 days and the applicant to pay Kshs 10,000 in costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court determined that the applicants' current suit is res judicata because the same matter was previously decided by the court in a judicial review application dismissed on 25th February 2020. The court found that the applicants, who had previously sought mandamus to compel payment of a decretal sum, did not challenge the earlier judgment and thus became estopped from re-litigating the same issue. The court applied the doctrine of res judicata as per section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, ruling that the suit is barred due to the prior final decision on the merits by the same court, and struck out the entire suit without costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court granted mandamus to compel the County Government of Embu and the County Public Service Board, Embu County to pay Kshs.2,398,833.30 as ordered in Nyeri ELRC Petition No.15 of 2017, where the respondents failed to settle the judgment debt despite being served with a certificate of order. The court found that the respondents' public officers had a duty to pay the decretal sum and costs, and the order of mandamus was issued to compel compliance with the court's judgment.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court considered an application to quash interdicts issued by respondents against the applicant, who was a chief in Kiruri Location Murang’a District. The applicant claimed the interdicts were premature as they were issued without preliminary investigations per the Public Service Discipline Manual, 2022. The court found that the interdicts were justified under the disciplinary procedure, as the applicant had been served with show cause letters, failed to reform, and the County HRMAC recommended interdiction after finding insubordination and gross misconduct. The court held that the applicant did not demonstrate grounds for judicial review intervention, as the disciplinary process followed valid procedures under the Discipline Manual and the Constitution. The court refused to quash the interdicts and ordered the applicant to proceed with the internal disciplinary process.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection to the applicant's motion to enforce a Director of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) award for workplace injury compensation. The respondent argued the application was time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act and Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA) due to delays in filing beyond statutory periods. The court held that the limitation period for enforcing DOSH awards starts from the date the award is communicated to the employer, not the accident date, and the applicant's motion was filed within the statutory timeframe. The court also found that failure to report the accident or lodge a claim within 12 months is a matter of fact requiring evidence, not a ground for preliminary objection. The court allowed the motion for enforcement of the DOSH award with interest from the filing date.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court granted a stay of execution pending the appeal of a PSC (Public Service Commission) decision reinstating union members, as the applicant demonstrated that the appeal had overwhelming chances of success and that granting the stay would prevent substantial loss due to the reinstatement process. The court found jurisdiction existed under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, rejected the argument that the court was functus officio, and determined that the application met the legal threshold for stay without undue delay.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court granted a stay of execution of a September 12, 2024 judgment pending the appeal hearing, as the applicant demonstrated that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if reinstatement occurred (which would be irreversible), and there was no undue delay in filing the application. The court found the applicant met the legal threshold for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) by showing substantial loss risk and willingness to deposit security, though the exact security amount was not quantified. The stay was granted for 120 days to allow the appeal to be determined.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court considered an application to enlarge time for filing a Notice of Appeal out of time due to system downtime in the Judiciary CTS. The Applicant argued that the delay was beyond its control, as the CTS was down from 20th August 2024, preventing timely filing within the 14-day limitation period ending 23rd August 2024. The court found the delay was only one day, the explanation for the delay was credible, and the application met the legal threshold for enlargement of time under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. The court granted the enlargement of time for filing the Notice of Appeal, applying the principles from Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR, and ruled that the applicant’s explanation for the delay was sufficient and the application was not frivolous.