Katana v Tarmal Wire Products Limited (Appeal 20 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that older work injury appeals already filed remain valid despite new practice directions on WIBA claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether practice directions issued by the Chief Justice can confer jurisdiction on the court
The Practice Directions do not confer jurisdiction; rather, the court's jurisdiction arises from statute and the Constitution, and the Directions merely consolidate and standardise procedure to enhance access to justice
The court accepted the principle that practice directions have no force of law and cannot stand against a conflicting statutory rule. However, the impugned Directions were issued to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment and Articles 48 and 159 of the Constitution. Since the appeal was filed before the Directions and during the period when Section 16 of WIBA had been declared unconstitutional, the appellant had a legitimate expectation to be heard. The Directions therefore did not negate the law but facilitated access to justice.
Whether the appeal, filed in 2020 against a subordinate court judgment delivered after WIBA came into force, is properly before the court
Yes. The suit was filed in 2014 when the High Court had declared sections of WIBA including Section 16 unconstitutional, creating a legitimate expectation that pending and filed claims would proceed under the judicial regime invoked; the appeal is therefore properly before the court
The claim was lodged on 26 August 2014, after the High Court judgment in Petition No. 185 of 2008 had declared WIBA's provisions unconstitutional, and before the Court of Appeal decision of 17 November 2017 reversing that position. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal only on 4 December 2019, after this appeal had been lodged. The court held that litigants who invoked the judicial process under the then-operative law had a legitimate expectation that their matters would be heard to conclusion, and the Practice Directions did not disturb that expectation.
Legal principles established
#- Practice directions cannot stand against a conflicting statutory rule and have no force of law
- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation or both
- An order of the court remains valid unless reviewed, set aside or overturned on appeal, the issue of jurisdiction notwithstanding
- A preliminary objection must be raised on a pure point of law
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objections dated 16 November 2023 are dismissed
- 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Mombasa)
- CMEL Case No. 1677 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011; constitutional provisions on access to justice (Articles 48, 159, 161(2)(a))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katana v Tarmal Wire Products Limited (Appeal 20 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3458/eng@2023-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.