Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 15th March 2024· [2024] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)

Ibwaga & 84 others v Attorney General (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E071 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 October 2024
2,672 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to reopen its earlier dismissal, confirming that a later Supreme Court decision changing the law is not a reason to review an old ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners/Applicants moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024 seeking review of the ruling of 3rd November 2023 by Lady Justice Anna Ngibuini Mwaure dismissing their petition on jurisdictional grounds under Article 165(3)(d)(1) of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act. They argued the ruling contained an error apparent on the face of the record because the Supreme Court, in Kenya Tea Growers Association v NSSF Board of Trustees (Petitions E004 & E002 of 2023, judgment of 21st February 2024), had since affirmed the ELRC's jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of statutes in employment matters. The Respondent opposed, contending that the Supreme Court decision could not apply retrospectively to a matter finally determined on 3rd November 2023, that the applicants were estopped and guilty of laches, and that the proper remedy was an appeal. The court, applying Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, and authorities including National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo, held that review lies only for patent, self-evident error and that the subsequent reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court is not a ground for review. Since the Supreme Court decision post-dated the ruling, no error on the face of the record existed when the ruling was made. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 3rd November 2023 dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction contained an error apparent on the face of the record entitling the applicants to review under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Holding

The application for review fails because at the time the ruling was made the court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction was correct; the Supreme Court decision confirming ELRC jurisdiction was delivered afterwards, and a subsequent change in the law is not a ground for review

Reasoning

Rule 33(1) permits review for discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, clarification, or other sufficient reason. The authorities establish that an error apparent must be self-evident without elaborate argument, and that reversal of a point of law by a later superior court decision in another case does not ground review. The applicants' complaint rests entirely on the Supreme Court's decision of 21st February 2024, which post-dated the ruling of 3rd November 2023. Hence no error existed on the face of the record when the ruling was made; the proper remedy was an appeal.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The fact that a decision on a question of law on which a judgment is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court in another case is not a ground for review of that judgment
  • Review lies only for patent, self-evident error; a mere erroneous decision or a different possible view of the law is not a ground for review - the remedy is appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024 seeking review of the ruling of 3rd November 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to meet their costs of this application
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Cap 8E, read with Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ibwaga & 84 others v Attorney General (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E071 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2516/eng@2024-10-11

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