SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rift Valley Railways Workers Union v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited & another [2014] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 1453 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1453
Citation
[2014] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)
Decided
10 December 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeIndustrial DisputePostureAppeal from an order staying a balloting exercise
Holding

The 2nd Respondent's application is competent and the matter is not res judicata. The 2nd Respondent has an arguable appeal and good prospects of success.

Facts

The 2nd Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and a Notice of Motion seeking a stay of the orders of the Court issued on 24th September 2014, which ordered a balloting exercise for the unionisable employees of the 1st Respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd Respondent's application for a stay of the orders is competent
  2. Whether the application is res judicata
  3. Whether the 2nd Respondent has an arguable appeal and good prospects of success

Reasoning

The Court agreed with the 2nd Respondent that the Civil Procedure Rules are properly applicable. The Court found that the matters raised in the current application are not res judicata as they differ from the earlier application. The Court also found that the 2nd Respondent has an arguable appeal and good prospects of success.

Outcome

The application for a stay of the orders is granted.

Orders

  • The balloting exercise is stayed pending the appeal.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Industrial Court Act
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Rosebell Wambui Muthee Vs Freight in Time
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case