Knatcom ex-staff fails to stop her sacking
A former chief accountant at Kenyan National Commission for UNESCO (KNATCOM) has suffered a blow after the employment and Labour Relations Court threw out her petition which she had sought orders to stop her sacking.
Catherine Nyakoboke had obtained temporary orders to stop her sacking at the agency but her employer moved to court claiming she failed to disclose she had filed two other petitions.
Justice Maureen Onyango agreed with the agency saying Nyakoboke’s suit was an abuse of court process as she had filed two other similar suits in different courts and only withdrew them after obtaining orders in the present suit.
“This is a classic case of forum shopping and waste of judicial time and resources. It is also a case of a litigant who set out to vex the Respondents,” ruled the Judge.
Nyakoboke had sued the agency, Inspector General of Police, Dr Evangeline Njoka and the Attorney General.
She had accused her estranged husband Joseph Oundo of instigating her sacking and investigations by Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
She claimed that the disciplinary process taken against her was instigated solely by the estranged husband and Dr Evangeline Njoka who is KNATCOM Secretary General and CEO contrary to clear advice from the board.
Nyakoboke is facing a criminal charges at the Milimani law courts of making a fake document without authority to enable her to get the job at the agency.
She was charged last year with fraudulently uttering forged documents namely ‘background check form’ purporting to be filled and signed by Walter Omwenga Oyugi.
The offence allegedly happened on March 5, 2018, at KNATCOM Unesco offices National Bank Building, Harambee Avenue, in Nairobi.
The Agency (Knatcom) in their application accused their former employee of deliberately failing to disclose and bring to the court’s attention that she had instituted two other similar matters against the same parties.
Justice Odero agreed with the agency saying it was clear that Nyakoboke withdrew the two previous petitions after obtaining orders in the present suit, which she had earlier failed to get in the two suits.
“I find that the suit herein was at the time of institution both res judicata and an abuse of Court process. The Petitioner first filed Petition 38 of 2020 where no orders were granted. While it was pending she filed JR 9 of 2020 where she again failed to obtain favorable orders. Thereafter she filed the instant suit where she obtained orders on 26th May 2020. It is after obtaining these orders that she withdrew the other two suits,” noted the Judge.
She dismissed her petition with cost for being an abuse of Court process.