Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2024] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)

China Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) v Mwangangi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E098 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 September 2024
1,184 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that new Chief Justice practice directions cannot reopen lawsuits already decided before those directions were published.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant had sued the Appellant before the Magistrate's Court for workplace injury compensation. The Appellant's preliminary objection on jurisdiction, grounded on the Work Injury Benefits Act, succeeded on appeal before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in a judgment delivered on 27th April 2023, resulting in the striking out of the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Respondent/Applicant then applied for review and setting aside of that judgment and reinstatement of the suit, relying on practice directions issued by the Chief Justice requiring courts to finalize pending personal injury and occupational disease claims. The application was brought under sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that review in the ELRC is governed by Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, and that the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to ELRC proceedings except as permitted by those rules (Johnson Kazungu v Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute). Nevertheless, because the applicant also invoked 'all other enabling provisions of law', the court proceeded to determine the application on the merits. The court found that the practice directions were published on 28th April 2023, one day after the impugned ruling, and, following Adel, Malongo and Maisha Mabati Mills, held they were prospective only and could not reopen finalized matters. The applicant also failed to establish any recognized ground of review. The application was dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicable procedural framework for review in the ELRC

Holding

Review applications in the ELRC must be brought under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, not Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules; however, the court entertained the application because of the catch-all 'all other enabling provisions of law'.

Reasoning

Proceedings before the ELRC are governed by the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply only as permitted by those rules, per Johnson Kazungu v Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute. Rule 33 is the proper basis for review. The court would have struck out the application for citing inapplicable provisions but, because the applicant also relied on 'all other enabling provisions of law', it considered the application competent and decided it on the merits.

p. 2
02

Retrospective application of the Chief Justice's practice directions

Holding

The practice directions published on 28th April 2023, a day after the impugned ruling, were prospective only and could not reopen matters already finalized.

Reasoning

The impugned ruling was delivered on 27th April 2023 and the practice directions were published on 28th April 2023. Following Adel v Abbysinia Iron & Steel, Malongo v Abbysinia Iron & Steel and Maisha Mabati Mills Ltd v Ondari, the court held that legal instruments are presumed forward-looking and there was no express intention that the directions apply retrospectively. They therefore cannot justify reopening a decision rendered before their publication.

p. 3
03

Parameters for review

Holding

The applicant failed to demonstrate any recognized ground of review: no error apparent on the face of the record, no newly discovered matter despite due diligence, and no need for clarification.

Reasoning

The court reiterated the established grounds for review. The Respondent/Applicant did not suggest an error on the face of the impugned ruling, did not identify an important matter that existed at the time of hearing but could not be brought to the court's attention despite due diligence, and did not contend that the decision required clarification. Absent these grounds, reliance on the practice directions alone could not sustain the review.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Statutory and legal instruments are presumed to have prospective, not retrospective, application unless a contrary intention is expressly stated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review was dismissed with costs to the Appellant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 33; Rule 28(3)
  • Work Injury Benefits ActNot specified

Cases cited (4)

  • Johnson Kazungu v Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
    [2021] eKLR
  • Adel v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd
    (Appeal E003 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 694 (KLR) (19 March 2024) (Ruling)
  • Malongo v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd
    (Appeal E004 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 695 (KLR) (19 March 2024) (Ruling)
  • Maisha Mabati Mills Ltd v Ondari & another
    (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 152 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 236 (KLR) (15 February 2024) (Ruling)
On appeal from
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "China Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) v Mwangangi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E098 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2254/eng@2024-09-19

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