Juliana Mutisya & 2 others v National Gender and Equality Commission & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Juliana Mutisya & 2 others v National Gender and Equality Commission [2020] eKLR case summary, highlighting key legal principles and implications on gender equality in Kenya.


Case Brief: Juliana Mutisya & 2 others v National Gender and Equality Commission & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Juliana Mutisya, Catherine Njeru, and Emily Ongaga v. National Gender and Equality Commission and The Attorney General
- Case Number: Cause No. 1818 of 2014
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for determination are whether there remains any surviving cause of action following the reinstatement of the Claimants and whether the suit should be struck out as moot.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Claimants, Juliana Mutisya, Catherine Njeru, and Emily Ongaga, were previously employed by the National Gender and Equality Commission (1st Respondent). They were reinstated to their positions following a court order dated 4th February 2015 after being terminated under allegations of corrupt practices. The 1st Claimant's contract ended in October 2017, while the 2nd and 3rd Claimants voluntarily resigned in April and September 2015, respectively. The Respondents filed a Notice of Motion seeking to strike out the Claimants' Statement of Claim, arguing that the matter had become moot as there was no surviving dispute.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the Claimants filing their Statement of Claim on 15th October 2014, seeking declarations of unfair termination and reinstatement. After being reinstated, the Claimants sought to amend their claim, which was dismissed by the court in October 2018. The 1st Respondent subsequently filed a motion to strike out the claim based on the argument that the claim was overtaken by events.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant provisions of the Employment Act, particularly Section 90, which outlines the limitation period for employment-related claims. Additionally, the court referenced the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 2 Rule 15(1), which allows for striking out pleadings that disclose no reasonable cause of action.
- Case Law: The court cited several precedents, including *Republic v National Employment Authority & 3 Others ex parte Middle East Consultancy Services Ltd [2018] eKLR*, which emphasized that a dispute must exist for the court to exercise its judicial function. The court also referenced *Daniel Kaminja & 3 Others v County Government of Nairobi [2019] eKLR*, which discussed the concept of mootness. The Claimants cited *East African Industries v Trufoods Ltd (1972) EA 420* and *Richard Nyagaka Tong'I v Chris Munga N. Bichage & 2 Others [2015] eKLR* to argue that the interlocutory ruling did not constitute a final determination of their rights.
- Application: The court found that the Claimants' reinstatement and subsequent resignations rendered the issues raised in the Statement of Claim moot. The court noted that the Claimants had received the relief sought through reinstatement, and their resignations meant there was no longer a live dispute to resolve. The court concluded that while the suit could not be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1) due to its original validity, the issues had been resolved by subsequent events, leading to a declaration that the suit was abated.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the Claimants' suit was moot and declared it abated, as there was no longer a justiciable controversy. The court awarded costs to the Claimants, acknowledging their previous success in being reinstated.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions presented in this case.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the Respondents, declaring the Claimants' suit moot due to their reinstatement and subsequent resignations. The decision underscores the principle that a claim must have an ongoing dispute to warrant judicial intervention, reinforcing the importance of finality in employment disputes. The court's ruling also highlights the implications of mootness in employment law, where changes in circumstances can extinguish previously actionable claims.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Juliana-Mutisya--2-others-v-National-Gender-and-Equality-Commission--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1601_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries