JudgmentKENYA AVIATION WORKERS UNION VS KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Judicial Review and Labour Rights DivisionPetitions
…The Respondent filed application dated 6th July, 2022 under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act,2011; Rules 17,33(1)(a) and (d) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court(Procedure) Rules…
…(Procedure) Rules 2016 to warrant the reliefs sought or at all.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
…The review jurisdiction of this Court is guided by Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. 7.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
…without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the claimant assessed at Ksh. 20,000 in accordance with Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 70(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
…it had taken the applicant about 5 months after the request for proceedings to file the instant application; the application offended the mandatory provisions of Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules, 2016 and section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. 4.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
…it had taken the applicant about 5 months after the request for proceedings to file the instant application; the application offended the mandatory provisions of Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules, 2016 and section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. 4.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
…it had taken the applicant about 5 months after the request for proceedings to file the instant application; the application offended the mandatory provisions of Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules, 2016 and section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. 4.…
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionClaim/Causes
…Rule 43(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024, allows a party to apply for dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution where no action has been taken within one year. 15.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
…The respondent, Dock Workers Union filed an application dated 31 October 2024 under the provisions of Sections 3 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act and Rule 8 ad 63 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules, 2024 seeking orders; The court be pleased to deem the authority to represent and act on behalf of the General Secretary by Leonard Ochieng filed with the affidavit dated 16 July 2024 as duly filed.…
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionMiscellaneous Applications
…The Respondent averred that an application for review under Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 could only be brought under Rule 33 and not 17 as invoked by the Applicants.…
…The Applicants have also approached this court on the wrong provisions of law since Review is provided for under Rules 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 and not Rule 17.…
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionClaim/Causes
…Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, empowers this court to review its judgements, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024.…
…Rule 74 (1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 states: “A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred or from which…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant, Cecilcia Wanja Mwanyolo, sought to reinstate a dismissed employment suit against SBM Bank Limited and other respondents after being absent from court on 29 April 2024. The court found the claimant's absence was due to an incorrect court link provided, but noted the claimant had previously attended court in both Nairobi and Mombasa. The court reinstated the suit on condition the claimant pays Ksh. 50,000 costs within 14 days, otherwise the suit would be dismissed.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
…The Appellants herein failed to file and serve witness statements when they filed their Responses to the Memorandum of Claim as required by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. 21.…
…The Appellants did not file witness statements as prescribed by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant sought to review and vary an order dismissing their employment suit due to non-attendance at court. The court found the claimant's failure to attend court despite being issued with a hearing date, and the notice to show cause being served to the correct email addresses, but the claimant did not attend the hearing. The court reinstated the suit for hearing on the merits, finding the claimant had not demonstrated sufficient interest in the case to justify the dismissal.
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionClaim/Causes
…the Respondent had made a similar application dated 21 December 2023 and that the Motion was contrary to section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33(6) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court…
…(Procedure) Rules, 2016. 7.…
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionClaim/Causes
The court considered an application by the Respondent to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, arguing that the Claimant had not prosecuted the case for over two years since the last court appearance in February 2021. The Claimant countered that the case had been actively litigated 19 times despite pandemic challenges and that the Respondent had attempted to settle the matter before filing the application. The court, guided by principles from prior cases, determined that the delay was not inordinate and that the suit should not be dismissed but set down for hearing within 60 days, with dismissal in default.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
…(Procedure) Rules.…
…In this appeal, the appellant has violated Rule 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 by filing the appeal out of time without leave.…
Division and case type: Claims and Labour Relations DivisionClaim/Causes
The court dismissed the Respondent’s motion to re-open the case and admit new evidence, finding that the Respondent discovered the new evidence (Claimant’s employment with Ruiru Njoroge & Associates) shortly before the hearing, failed to seek timely leave to introduce the evidence, and engaged in conduct inconsistent with due diligence and court procedures. The court determined the motion was an abuse of process, as the Respondent waited until after the hearing to move for re-opening, and the new evidence was unlikely to influence the outcome of the unfair termination claim under the Employment Act. The court also noted the Respondent’s prior non-compliance with court directions and the lack of proportionality in the motion’s timing and purpose.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Mombasa ruled on an application by the Technical University of Mombasa to set aside orders that closed the respondent's case, recall the claimant for cross-examination, and grant the respondent an opportunity to defend. The court found that the respondent's counsel mistakenly diarized the hearing date for 9 May 2024 instead of 8 May 2024, leading to non-attendance on the scheduled date. The court dismissed the application, noting that the claimant had taken a laid-back position and did not file a response, and awarded the claimant costs of Ksh.50,000 with interest. The court emphasized that parties must attend court as required and that diligence in court proceedings is essential to the course of justice.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
…The respondent filed an application dated 25 February 2025 under the provisions of Section 74 [Rule] of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of…
…Determination Under Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, a party is allowed to seek a review of the judgment and court orders where, (1) A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order…
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
…It is submitted for the Respondent that contrary to Rule 14 (7) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, the Claimant through his supplementary statement, is only seeking to introduce a new cause of…
…Rule 14 (7) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure)Rules, states thus: “Where the Court, either on its own motion or on application by a party, is satisfied that a pleading does not adequately set out the…