Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal 374 of 2014· [2022] KECA 597 (KLR)

James Mwangi & 21 Others v Attorney General

Court of Appeal
28 April 2022
2,041 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that if a judgment is wrong on a point of law, you must appeal it — asking for review instead leads nowhere.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellants, former employees declared redundant in 2009, had obtained an award of Kshs. 6,278,165.00 from the then Industrial Court in Industrial Cause No. 462 N of 2009 after withdrawing an earlier cause. The 1st respondent then filed Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 105 of 2010, in which the appellants were named only as interested parties. Mumbi, J. upheld the petition on July 11, 2012, holding that Section 73(3) of the Labour Relations Act required union members' claims to be brought through the union, and that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, rendering the award null and void. The appellants applied on May 17, 2013 for review/setting aside of that judgment, claiming they were never served; Ongaya, J. dismissed the application on June 13, 2014, finding they were aware of the petition through their advocates but delayed unexplainably. The Court of Appeal confined itself to that ruling, holding that submissions on non-service, fair hearing, locus standi and Section 73(3) belonged to the earlier judgment and were not before it. On the merits, the Court found the appellants had not met the Order 45 threshold for review, and that a judgment based on a pure point of law on jurisdiction is amenable only to appeal, applying Origo v Mungala. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the appeal before the Court

Holding

The appeal was confined to the ruling of Ongaya, J. dismissing the review application; issues of non-service, fair hearing, locus standi and Section 73(3) of the Labour Relations Act, which belonged to the judgment of Mumbi, J., were outside the appeal.

Reasoning

The Court noted it was not in dispute that the Notice of Appeal dated June 18, 2014 targeted only the ruling of June 13, 2014. Submissions on the merits of the underlying petition were therefore misplaced and could not be entertained on this appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the review application satisfied Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The appellants failed to meet the threshold requirements for review; the application was filed after unexplained and inexcusable delay and disclosed no ground for review.

Reasoning

Order 45 requires discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons, and the application must be made without delay. Ongaya, J. found the applicants were aware of the petition through their advocates but delayed unexplainably; the Court found no basis to interfere with that finding.

p. 4
03

Whether a jurisdictional error is reviewable

Holding

A judgment founded on a pure point of law concerning jurisdiction can only be challenged on appeal, not by review.

Reasoning

The judgment of Mumbi, J. held the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 73(3) of the Labour Relations Act. Because the impugned judgment rested on a pure point of law on jurisdiction, review was the wrong remedy; the appellants, having chosen review over appeal, reached a dead end.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment based on a pure point of law touching on jurisdiction is amenable to appeal, not review.
  • An erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is a ground for appeal, not review.
  • An appeal lies only against the decision identified in the Notice of Appeal; matters decided in a different, earlier decision cannot be canvassed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellants' appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the 1st respondent
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Industrial Court Petition No. 4 of 2013 (formerly Nairobi HC Petition No. 105 of 2010)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Notice of Appeal dated June 18, 2014)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Mwangi & 21 Others v Attorney General", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal 374 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/597/eng@2022-04-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.