Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 313 (KLR)

Muriuki & another (Suing as the legal representatives of Patrick Kibiru Muriithi) v Isinya Roses Limited (Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 313 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 February 2024
DNDavid Nderitu
2,345 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru employment court refused to revisit its decision that a worker's family filed a compensation claim too late, confirming Kenya's strict three-year employment claim deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, legal representatives of Patrick Kibiru Mureithi who died in the respondent's employment on 9th June 2016, sought review or setting aside of a ruling of 29th March 2023 in which the court had dismissed their application to enforce a compensation award of Kshs.5,230,392 assessed by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health, holding the enforcement application statutorily time-barred beyond the three-year period under section 90 of the Employment Act. The review application invoked sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent opposed, arguing no error apparent on the face of the record, no new evidence, no sufficient cause, and that the application was in substance an appeal against the court's own ruling. The court framed a single issue: whether it should review or set aside its orders of 29th March 2023. Applying rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, it held that no new and important evidence had been discovered; the alleged Supreme Court stay of WIBA claims pending Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General was unsupported by any evidence; the complaint that the court misapprehended the law was a ground of appeal, not review; and no clarification or sufficient reason was shown. The court noted the claim limitation is mandatory with no provision for extension, and observed the applicants' parallel cause before the Engineer Magistrate's court amounted to abuse of process, while urging the respondent to consider the moral and corporate implications of leaving the award unsettled. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling and orders of 29th March 2023 should be set aside or reviewed under rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Holding

The application for review fails; none of the grounds in rule 33 is established.

Reasoning

Rule 33 permits review on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason. The applicants offered no new evidence not within their knowledge earlier; the alleged Supreme Court stay of WIBA claims was unsupported by any evidence; the claimed misapprehension of the law on limitation is an appellate ground; and no sufficient reason was shown. The limitation provision (section 90 of the Employment Act) is mandatory.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicants' alleged stay of WIBA proceedings by the Supreme Court justified the delay

Holding

Rejected; no evidence of any such stay order or directive was availed and the court is not aware of any.

Reasoning

The applicants asserted that all WIBA proceedings were stayed pending Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General (Supreme Court Petition No. 4 of 2019) and relied on a Chief Justice circular, but produced no order or directive evidencing any stay. The respondent also pointed out that the applicants' undisclosed cause before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Engineer over the same subject matter, filed while these proceedings were pending, constituted abuse of court process.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may not sit on appeal over its own decisions; the only avenue to revisit its own ruling is review under the governing procedural rules, on the grounds enumerated therein
  • An allegation that the court misapprehended the law is a ground of appeal, not a ground for review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion by the applicants dated 2nd May, 2023 is dismissed with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rule 1; Order 51 rules 1 & 3
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016rule 33
  • Employment Actsection 90
  • Workmen Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)not specified

Cases cited (1)

  • Law Society of Kenya vs. Attorney General & Another
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, rule 33; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muriuki & another (Suing as the legal representatives of Patrick Kibiru Muriithi) v Isinya Roses Limited (Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 313 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/313/eng@2024-02-22

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