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 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 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 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 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.