Kamanja & 2 others (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of the 26 Workers of the Respondent) v Board of Management, Highway Secondary School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 192 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1334 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan school failed to overturn a Kshs.9.25 million employment award because it never appealed the original judgment and tried re-litigating settled issues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application raised substantive issues warranting the court's intervention
No - the issues were already determined in the judgment of 9/4/2020 and were res judicata, the judgment having never been appealed.
The court noted that the judgment of 9/4/2020 by Ongaya J. made specific findings that the respondent had wilfully failed to implement the DPM circulars and ordered specific performance. The applicant's present complaints about the computation (wrong job groups, overpayment, employee separations) effectively sought to re-litigate those findings without appealing, which the court held to be barred by res judicata.
Whether a miscarriage of justice would occur if the application was not allowed
No - the respondent had been given ample opportunity to defend the suit and file computation but failed, and cannot hide behind the mistake of its advocate.
The court traced the litigation history: the interlocutory judgment of 9/4/2020 entered after formal proof, an earlier application to set it aside dismissed on 25/5/2021, the respondent's failure to file computation despite several opportunities, and the exparte confirmation of the claimants' computation on 26/5/2022. The applicant did not challenge that ruling until execution was threatened, and prior attempts to set aside had already been rejected.
Whether the claimants would suffer irreparable damage if the application was allowed
The court found the application to be an abuse of process designed to delay execution of a lawful judgment, implying prejudice to the claimants if allowed.
The claimants had already begun execution, which was injuncted by a ruling dated 8/6/2023. Allowing yet another challenge to a confirmed computation would further delay enforcement of a judgment that had been in place since 2020 and never appealed. The court therefore characterized the application as an obstruction of justice.
Legal principles established
#- A party who failed to defend a suit and whose issues were already determined in an unappealed judgment cannot re-litigate those issues through an application styled as a request to set aside a ruling or file computation.
- The court's discretion in such applications will not be exercised to obstruct or delay justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27/11/2023 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the claimant/respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment; the court exercised its inherent discretion over review and setting aside of its own rulings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamanja & 2 others (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of the 26 Workers of the Respondent) v Board of Management, Highway Secondary School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 192 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1334/eng@2024-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.