Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2024] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Maisha Mabati Mills Ltd v Ondari & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 152 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 February 2024
BMB. O. M. Manani
2,543 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to reopen a closed work injury appeal, confirming Kenya's 2023 practice directions only apply to cases still pending.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court on an application seeking review of the court's decision of 25th October 2022, which struck out an appeal from Thika CMCC No. 404 of 2018 for want of jurisdiction and declared the trial Magistrate's decision a nullity. The appeal concerned a work injury claim filed on 22nd May 2018, after both the Court of Appeal (17th November 2017) and later the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General had affirmed that the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, not the courts, must process work injury and occupational disease claims filed after the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2008 came into force. Following divergent interpretations among courts, the Chief Justice issued Practice Directions via Gazette Notice No.5476 of 2023, directing that claims filed after commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision of 3rd December 2019 proceed to conclusion in the courts where pending. The Applicant argued these directions constituted new circumstances justifying reopening of his closed appeal, invoking the mischief rule and asserting the directions were clarificatory. Justice B.O.M. Manani held that practice directions cannot assume the status of judicial precedent, alter settled law, or confer jurisdiction where none exists, and that statutory instruments are presumed prospective absent express contrary intention. The directions, issued six months after the decision, targeted only pending matters. Reopening closed matters would open a Pandora's Box and engender confusion. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Chief Justice's Practice Directions of 2023 on pending work injury claims apply retrospectively to reopen closed matters

Holding

The directions were not intended to apply retrospectively and cannot reopen the closed appeal

Reasoning

The court held that the Practice Directions were intended to apply to cases still pending in the court system when they were issued. They did not expressly require reopening of concluded matters, and the law is presumed prospective unless a contrary intention is expressed. The court's decision striking out the appeal predates the directions by six months, and reopening it would trigger a flood of similar applications and confusion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Practice directions cannot assume the position of judicial precedent, alter settled legal principles, or confer jurisdiction where none exists, and therefore cannot have retrospective application
  • Statutory instruments and practice directions are presumed to have prospective application unless a contrary intention is expressed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application seeking review and reopening of the appeal was dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Work Injury Benefits Act, 2008
  • Gazette Notice No.5476 of 2023 (Practice Directions relating to pending court claims for compensation for work related injuries and diseases)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
  • ELRC Procedure RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Law Society of Kenya v. Attorney General & Another
    Petition No. 4 of 2019; [2019] eKLR
  • John K. Malembi v Trufosa Cheredi Mudembei & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Keroche Industries Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority
    (2007) e KLR
  • Pauline Anna Benadette Onyango v Kenya School of Law
    [2017] eKLR
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd and 2 Others
    SCK Application No. 2 of 2011 [2012] eKLR
  • Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own decision of 25th October 2022 striking out the appeal from Thika CMCC No. 404 of 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maisha Mabati Mills Ltd v Ondari & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 152 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 236 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/236/eng@2024-02-15

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