Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 23rd November 2020 (ELRC Petition, Nairobi)· [2020] KEELRC 53 (KLR)

Lilian W. Mbogo-Omollo v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Public Service & Gender & another [2020] KEELRC 53 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 December 2020
NMNzioki wa Makau
3,128 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to increase a Kshs. 1 award, confirming that disagreeing with a judge's decision is not a valid ground for review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2020 in which Lillian W. Mbogo-Omollo, the Petitioner in an employment and constitutional petition, sought review of the judgment of Radido J. delivered on 21st July 2020. The judgment had declared that a Principal Secretary is entitled to protections assured public officers under Article 236 of the Constitution but awarded only nominal damages of Kshs. 1/- for violation of her right to due process, with each party bearing its own costs. The Petitioner sought clarification and review on the ground of 'sufficient reason', arguing that the court had found her removal unconstitutional yet left her effectively empty-handed, and that proceedings before the Anti-Corruption Court initiated by the Assets Recovery Agency had since been appealed against in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2020. The Respondents opposed, contending that no new and compelling matter existed, that the judgment was self-explanatory, and that reinstatement to the payroll would amount to unjust enrichment and double restitution. Nzioki wa Makau J. confirmed jurisdiction to hear the review under Rule 33(2) since the judge who delivered the judgment had left the station. He held the judgment required no clarification, being unambiguous, and that nominal damages were appropriate given the High Court's finding that the Petitioner was a beneficiary of proceeds of crime. No ground under Rule 33 was invoked. The motion was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of Radido J. required clarification under Rule 33(1)(c)

Holding

The court held the decision was unambiguous and required no clarification; the Learned Judge had considered Article 236 protections and rendered a clear verdict awarding nominal damages.

Reasoning

The court read the decision of Radido J. and found it expressed in clear and unambiguous language: the Petitioner's removal was unconstitutional but, having been found by the High Court to be a beneficiary of proceeds of crime, she was awarded nominal damages of Kshs. 1/-. Because the judgment was self-explanatory, the ground of clarification under Rule 33(1)(c) was not available.

p. 4
02

Whether the Petitioner demonstrated any other sufficient reason for review under Rule 33(1)(d)

Holding

No sufficient reason analogous to the recognised grounds of review was demonstrated; the motion was dismissed.

Reasoning

Relying on authority that 'any other sufficient reason' must be analogous to discovery of new matter or error apparent on the face of the record, the court found the Petitioner's grievance with the award of nominal damages amounted to a disagreement with the exercise of discretion, not a recognised ground of review. No ground under Rule 33 was invoked.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual
  • A review for clarification or any other sufficient reason must be analogous to the grounds of discovery of new matter or error apparent on the face of the record

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petitioner's notice of motion dated 23rd November 2020 seeking review is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 33(1) and (2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 236
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA)Section 62
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1 (referred to via analogy)

Cases cited (7)

  • Paul Mwaniki v National Hospital Insurance Fund Board of Management
    [2020] eKLR
  • Sadar Mohamed vs Charan Singh and Another
  • Chairman Board of Governors Highway Secondary School v William Mmosi Moi
    [2007] eKLR
  • Daniel Kibet Mutai & 9 Others v Attorney General
    [2019] eKLR
  • Stephen Gathua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi t/a Providence Auctioneers
    [2015] eKLR
  • Bitange Ndemo v Director of Public Prosecutions
    [2013] eKLR
  • Madhupaper International Ltd & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 31
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33(1) and (2) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (8)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lilian W. Mbogo-Omollo v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Public Service & Gender & another [2020] KEELRC 53 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2020 (ELRC Petition, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/53/eng@2020-12-17

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