Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review application dated 4th April, 2017, filed 6th April, 2017 (arising from Cause No. 212 of 2014)· [2018] KEELRC 1872 (KLR)

Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies v National Police Service Commision & 8 others [2018] KEELRC 1872 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2018
1,020 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a bid to enforce a claimed Kshs.91.5 million settlement because the applicant could not prove any consent agreement actually existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance judicial review decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The applicant, Kenya Council of Employment & Migration Agency, had earlier filed Cause No. 212 of 2014 against the National Police Service Commission and 8 others, in which interim orders stopped a passing out parade of police recruits; an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2014) with stay orders remains pending. After leave to apply for judicial review was granted on 7th April 2017, the applicant sought orders compelling adoption of an alleged oral consent between it and State Counsel Peter Ngumi, reduced to a draft consent said to bind the respondents to pay Kshs.91,500,000 plus 12% interest from 9th February 2014 and to conclude Cause No. 212 of 2014. The 1st and 2nd Respondents opposed through grounds of opposition, terming the application frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, while State Counsel opposed for the 5th to 9th Respondents. The court framed one issue: whether the applicant had proved the existence of a settlement consent. Applying sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, it held the burden lay on the applicant on a balance of probabilities, and found that no consent agreement existed or was adopted; the purported draft consent was neither annexed nor executed. The court also deprecated disparaging depositions against officers of the Attorney General's office as an unwarranted trend. The application for mandamus was dismissed with costs to the Respondents as a deterrence. Judgment was signed by Mathews N. Nduma J in Kisumu on 2nd May 2018 and delivered by Maureen Onyango J in Nairobi on 30th May 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a consent/agreement to settle Cause No. 212 of 2014 for Kshs.91,500,000 existed

Holding

No consent agreement existed; the alleged oral consent and draft were neither annexed nor executed

Reasoning

The court considered the depositions, the record in Cause No. 212 of 2014, the orders of Judge Marete of 17th March 2014 and the Court of Appeal proceedings. It noted the purported draft consent was not annexed to the application and no executed agreement was produced, so the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant was entitled to orders of mandamus compelling adoption of the alleged consent

Holding

Mandamus was refused as the applicant proved nothing warranting the orders

Reasoning

Having failed to prove the foundational consent, no mandamus could issue. The court also censured the applicant's disparaging depositions against officers of the Attorney General's office as lacking factual or legal basis and contrary to fair administration of justice and the rule of law.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • He who asserts a fact bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities in civil cases
  • A respondent only bears an evidential burden of rebuttal once sufficient evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judicial Review application dated 4th April, 2017 and filed on 6th April, 2017 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSections 107, 108, 109
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (leave to commence judicial review granted on 7th April, 2017)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies v National Police Service Commision & 8 others [2018] KEELRC 1872 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review application dated 4th April, 2017, filed 6th April, 2017 (arising from Cause No. 212 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1872/eng@2018-05-30

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