China Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) v Mwangangi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E098 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)
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
#Key legal issues
#Applicable procedural framework for review in the ELRC
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'.
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.
Retrospective application of the Chief Justice's practice directions
The practice directions published on 28th April 2023, a day after the impugned ruling, were prospective only and could not reopen matters already finalized.
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.
Parameters for review
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.
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.
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.The application for review was dismissed with costs to the Appellant
- 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.