Otieno v University of Nairobi [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR)

Otieno v University of Nairobi (Cause E205 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 576 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Cause E205 of 2021

L Ndolo, J

February 27, 2025

Between

Lucas Onyango Otieno

Claimant

and

University of Nairobi

Respondent

Ruling

1. When the main claim came up for hearing on 24th October 2024, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the subject matter of the claim is similar to Cause No E722 of 2022: Kudheiha v University of Nairobi, in which the Court had already delivered judgment.

2. Counsel for the Claimant took a different view, stating that there was evidence that the judgment in Cause No E722 of 2022 did not apply to this matter.

3. Arising from the divergent positions taken by the parties, I directed Counsel to file written submissions on this issue.

4. In its submissions dated 12th November 2024, the Respondent states that the issues raised in the present case are similar to those determined in Cause No E722 of 2022.

5. On his part, the Claimant disagrees with the position taken by the Respondent. In his submissions dated 15th November 2024, he refers to the decision in World Explorers Safaris Limited v Cosmopolitan Travel Limited & another [2021] eKLR where it was held that:“The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of the particular case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference of facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but one must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in the thickets and branches.”

6. My decision in Cause No E722 of 2022 dealt with the single question whether the provision for gratuity in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2013-2017 could apply retrospectively. To my mind, this decision did not address respective claims by individual employees or former employees of the Respondent.

7. The judgment in Cause No E722 of 2022 cannot therefore be used to defeat the present claim, which I direct, will proceed to hearing on merit.

8. I make no order for costs.

9. Orders accordingly.

DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2025LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Onenga for the ClaimantMs. Nyaga for the Respondent