Automated Summary
Key Facts
The petitioner filed three overlapping suits (Petition No. 38 of 2020, JR No. 9 of 2020, and Petition No. 82 of 2020) against the same respondents, seeking similar reliefs. The court found that the petitioner withdrew the first two suits after obtaining favorable ex parte orders in the third suit, which was filed earlier. This was deemed an abuse of court process, forum shopping, and a waste of judicial resources, leading to the third suit being struck out with costs.
Issues
- Whether the Employment Act, 2007, was relevant to the determination of the petitioner's employment-related claims.
- Whether the court should address the application of Sections 4, 7, N8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27, 28, 31, 41, and 47 of the Constitution were violated.
- Whether the court should consider the application of Rules 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013.
- Whether the court should address the issues under various articles of the Constitution of Kenya, including Articles 2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 41, 47, 48, 50, 73, 75, 159, 162(2)(a), 165(3)(b), 232, 258(12)(b) & (c), and 259(1).
- Whether the court should consider the application of Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act.
- Whether the petitioner's actions contravened national values under Article 10, leadership principles under Article 73, and public service values under Article 232 of the Constitution.
Holdings
The court determined that the Petitioner's suit was an abuse of the court process and struck it out with costs. The Petitioner had previously filed two similar suits (Petition No. 38 of 2020 and JR No. 9 of 2020) seeking similar reliefs against the same respondents. After failing to obtain favorable orders in those suits, she filed the instant petition to secure relief, which was granted on 26th May 2020, and subsequently withdrew the earlier suits. The court found this to be a clear case of forum shopping, wasting judicial resources, and vexing the respondents, thus violating principles of judicial integrity and efficiency.
Remedies
The court struck out the petition and awarded costs to the respondents, determining that the suit was sub judice at the time of filing and constituted an abuse of the court process. This decision was based on the petitioner having filed similar suits previously and then withdrawing them after obtaining favorable orders in this case.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principle of res judicata to determine that the matter had already been adjudicated in previous proceedings (Nairobi ELRC Petition No. 38 of 2020 and Judicial Review No. 9 of 2020) and could not be relitigated. The principle requires that a court must not try a suit where the same matter was already heard and finally decided in a prior case between the same parties.
- The court found the petition constituted an abuse of the court process through forum shopping, multiplicity of actions, and deliberate misrepresentation of facts. This principle involves improper use of judicial processes to harass opponents or waste judicial resources, as seen in the petitioner's repeated filings of similar suits.
Precedent Name
- Godfrey Paul Okutoyi v Habil Olaka - Executive Director (Secretary) of the Kenya Bankers Association & Another
- Muchanga Investments Limited v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others
- Paul Makokha Okoiti v Kenya Revenue Authority
- Stephen Somek Takwenyi & Another v David Mbuthia Githare & 2 Others
- Fernandoh Wangechi Muriuki v Family Bank Limited & Another
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
- Fair Administrative Action Act
- Civil Procedure Act
- Constitution of Kenya
- Law Reform Act
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Judge Name
Maureen Onyango
Passage Text
- "For the foregoing reasons, I strike out the suit herein with costs for being sub judice at the time it was filed and for being an abuse of Court process."
- "... Further, Angote J. came to a similar conclusion in the Chairman District Alcoholic Drinks Regulation Committee case (also supra) when he detailed at paragraphs 38 and 39 thereof: '38. A party who wishes to file a suit which is similar to an existing suit must withdraw the first suit first. This court cannot allow parties to be filing a multiplicity of suits on the basis that they have found that the previous suit(s) wanting either in content or form. The court must and should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to stop such abuse of the court process.' 39. Abuse of court process includes a situation where a party improperly uses judicial process to the irritation, harassment and annoyance of his opponent and to interfere with the administration of justice."
- "This is a power inherent in the court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the court that it has been deceived. The court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. When the matter is expressed in negative tenor it is said that there is inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of the court."