Case ID:170262

Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v Kenya Railways Corporation [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Cause Number 830 of 2019

Parties:

Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v Kenya Railways Corporation

Date Delivered:

18 Feb 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

James Rika

Citation:

Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v Kenya Railways Corporation [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Employment and Labour Relations

County:

Nairobi

Case Outcome:

Claim declined

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR

RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI

CAUSE NUMBER 830 OF 2019

BETWEEN

RIFT VALLEY RAILWAY WORKERS UNION..............................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION..........................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Claimant filed this Claim on behalf of its Member/ Grievant, Francis Oduor Odera, on 13

th

December 2019.

2. Odera was employed by the Respondent as a Locomotive Driver is 1990, and dismissed on

21

st

October 2014.

3. The Claimant seeks to have Odera reinstated, or paid compensation and terminal benefits.

4. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 19

th

February 2020, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. It is the position of the Respondent that all issues raised by the Claimant, are directly in issue in previously instituted suits, being:

Nairobi E&LRC Petition No. 76 of 2017 Elijah Mokaya & Others v. Kenya Railways Corporation; E&LRC Cause No. 37 of 2013 Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v. Kenya Railways Corporation;

and

Rift Valley Railways [Kenya] Limited v. Kenya Railways Corporation & The Government of Kenya.

5. Parties recorded consent to have the Preliminary Objection considered and determined on the strength of their Pleadings and Submissions. They confirmed filing of the Submissions on 17

th

December 2020.

The Court Finds

: -

6. The Claimant acknowledges the presence of other suits listed at paragraph 4 of this Ruling, involving the similar issues. In its Pleadings, the Claimant refers to Consent Order recorded in

‘’Commercial Suit Number 136 of 2017, whose import was to terminate the existence of one of the Parties therein, the Respondent herein, courtesy of the said order and other subsequent orders as recorded in Petition Number 76 of 2017, obligates the Respondent herein to assume every liability accrued to the Grievant herein.’’

7. Why file a fresh Claim, if there are other Claims filed in Court, where orders have issued, obligating the Respondent to assume every liability accrued to the Grievant herein? Enforcement should be through the existing Claims, where liability was found to have accrued.

8. In its Application dated 13

th

October 2019, the Claimant seeks an order, in rather unclear language, that:

‘’the Hon. Court directs, that in light of the Consent Orders as have been presented in Court by the Applicant herein, in Commercial Suit Number 136 of 2017 and Petition 76 of 2017, the Respondent herein be fully obligated in the likely event that the Court ascertains liability.’’

9. The present Claim therefore assumes the character of an enforcement mechanism, over orders issued in other litigation. It is based on orders arising from other litigation. This is in abuse of the court process. The Claimant ought to pursue remedy under the existing suits, not open up new, confusing frontiers.

10. Looking at the Claim from another perspective, the Claimant was dismissed on 21

st

October 2014. He filed this Claim on 13

th

December 2019, 5 years later. The Claim offends Section 90 of the Employment Act.

11. The Court lacks jurisdiction on account of the presence of other suits involving the same Parties and issues; and, on account of Section 90 of the Employment Act.

IT IS ORDERED: -

a. The Claim is declined for want of jurisdiction.

b. No order on the costs.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18

th

day of February, 2021.

James Rika

JUDGE