Kenya Medical Research Institute v Attorney General & another; Agnes Muthoni & 34 others (1st Interested Parties) & another [2019] KEELRC 354 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya (High Court), at Nairobi

18 October 2019

ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson

665 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan employment court refused to redo a decided case just because of a later ruling on bench composition, confirming final judgments cannot simply be reopened.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Abuodha Jorum Nelson, J) arose after the Supreme Court's decision in R v Karisa Chengo & 2 Others (Petition No 5 of 2015) held that a High Court bench including a judge of the Environment and Land Court was unconstitutionally composed. The Chief Justice, by letter dated 9th February 2018 to the Principal Judge of the ELRC, sought reconstitution of the bench that had heard and determined this petition on 16th July 2015 (Justices Nderi Nduma, Mumbi Ngugi and George Odunga), the Petitioner having filed a Notice of Appeal and obtained a conditional stay of execution on 9th September 2016. Counsel for the Petitioner confirmed he took no issue with the jurisprudential soundness of the judgment, only the mixed composition of the bench. The Court agreed with the Chief Justice that, the matter being pending on appeal and the Court arguably functus officio, reconstituting a bench to hear the matter de novo would not serve any purpose and would be an uneconomical use of judicial time. The Court held that the objection was technical and did not impugn the legal soundness of the 2015 judgment, which it found legally sound, and that only the Court of Appeal could overturn it. It accordingly declined jurisdiction to determine the matter afresh, holding the Court functus officio upon delivering judgment on 16th July 2015. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

Whether the ELRC could re-open a decided petition following the Supreme Court's decision in R v Karisa Chengo on mixed bench composition

Holding

The Court declined to hear the matter afresh, holding it was functus officio after delivering judgment on 16th July 2015.

Reasoning

The judgment had been rendered by a full bench of competent superior court judges on the merits, and the only complaint was the technical objection of a mixed bench following Karisa Chengo. The Chief Justice had himself queried the purpose of reconstitution given the pending appeal. The Court agreed that re-hearing de novo would be an uneconomical use of judicial time and that only the Court of Appeal could overturn the judgment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A court that has rendered final judgment becomes functus officio and cannot re-open or re-determine the matter merely because of a subsequent decision on bench composition; recourse lies on appeal.

Court orders

1.The Court declined jurisdiction to determine the matter afresh, holding that it became functus officio upon rendering its judgment on 16th July 2015
2.It is so ordered

Authorities

Legislation

Labour Institutions ActSection 12

Cases cited (1)

R v Karisa Chengo and 2 Others
Petition No 5 of 2015

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Labour Institutions Act; invoked in relation to reconstitution of the bench following the Supreme Court decision in R v Karisa Chengo

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Medical Research Institute v Attorney General & another; Agnes Muthoni & 34 others (1st Interested Parties) & another [2019] KEELRC 354 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No 31 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/354/eng@2019-10-18

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