George Ngugi Njoroge & 3 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the key insights and outcomes of the George Ngugi Njoroge & 3 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2020] eKLR case. Stay informed on legal precedents and implications in this comprehensive summary.

Case Brief: George Ngugi Njoroge & 3 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: George Ngugi Njoroge & Others v. Attorney General & Others
- Case Number: 170 of 2017
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue presented before the court was whether the current suit filed by the claimants is res judicata, thereby warranting its dismissal based on the claimants having previously raised similar issues in another suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimants, George Ngugi Njoroge, Paul Okoth Ogango, Paul Ngugi Karanja, and Kiplagat Benard, filed a suit against five respondents, including the Attorney General and various entities of the National Police Service, alleging unfair and unlawful termination of their employment. The claimants sought compensation and terminal dues related to their alleged wrongful termination. The suit was initiated on 4th May 2017, following their prior industrial dispute (Nairobi Industrial Dispute No. 261 of 2016), which had not been heard on its merits and was ultimately struck out for non-prosecution.

4. Procedural History:
The respondents filed a substantive response to the claim on 6th November 2017, followed by a notice of preliminary objection on 3rd July 2019, arguing that the current suit was res judicata. The respondents contended that the claimants had previously litigated the same issues against the same parties in the earlier Nairobi suit. The claimants responded to the preliminary objection with their submissions on 7th February 2020, leading to the court's ruling on the matter.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered the principle of res judicata as articulated in Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which prohibits the litigation of matters that have already been determined in a prior suit involving the same parties and issues. The court also referenced Henderson v. Henderson (1834) regarding the comprehensive nature of the res judicata doctrine.

Case Law:
The court cited the case of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai and Others, which established criteria for res judicata, including whether the previous suit was heard and finally determined. The court also referenced Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Limited v. West End Distributors Limited, which defined a preliminary objection as a pure point of law that does not require the examination of factual disputes.

Application:
In applying the rules and case law to the facts of the case, the court found that while the claimants in the current suit were indeed the same as in the previous suit, the critical criterion of whether the earlier suit had been "heard and finally determined" was not met. The previous suit had been struck out for non-prosecution and thus had not been adjudicated on its merits. Consequently, the court ruled that the current suit was not barred by res judicata and could proceed.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the respondents' preliminary objection, allowing the current suit to be heard on its merits. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring that parties have the opportunity to have their cases fully considered in court, particularly when prior suits have not been resolved on their substantive issues.

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

8. Summary:
The ruling in George Ngugi Njoroge & Others v. Attorney General & Others underscored the court's commitment to ensuring access to justice, even in the face of procedural challenges such as res judicata. The court's decision to allow the current suit to proceed highlights the legal principle that parties should not be barred from pursuing their claims when previous cases have not been adjudicated on their merits. This decision may have broader implications for future cases involving similar procedural objections in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • George-Ngugi-Njoroge--3-others-v-Attorney-General--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1993_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries