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 the judgment

Wakaba v Deputy County Commissioner Kajaido North Sub-County & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E050 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 136 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 January 2025
AJAbuodha Nelson Jorum
806 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment appeal survives a strike-out bid because the appeal clock starts when the Memorandum of Appeal is filed, not the Record of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondents filed a preliminary objection dated 3rd June, 2024 seeking the striking out of the Appellant's appeal on the ground that the Record of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal were filed out of time, contrary to Rule 8(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, which requires an appeal to be filed within thirty days of the decision. They asserted that judgment was delivered on 27th January, 2022 by Hon. D.M Kivuti, and that the Record of Appeal dated 12th May, 2024 was filed some two years later without leave, rendering the appeal defective, incompetent and an abuse of process. In response, the Appellant's advocate, Leonard Amunze Anyonje, swore a Replying Affidavit explaining that on 27th January, 2022 the court only confirmed filing of submissions and took a judgment date; judgment was slated for 15th March, 2022, was not ready on that date, and was delivered on 18th March, 2022. The Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 12th April, 2022, within 30 days. He explained that the Record of Appeal was delayed because certified proceedings and the decree were unavailable from the registry until 2024, and that time runs from filing of the Memorandum of Appeal, not the Record of Appeal. The court agreed, holding that the judgment was delivered on either 15th or 18th March, 2022 and that the Memorandum of Appeal was therefore filed within the 30-day period. It held that time for filing an appeal is reckoned from the Memorandum of Appeal, not the Record of Appeal, which depends on availability of typed proceedings and the decree. The preliminary objection was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Memorandum and Record of Appeal were filed out of the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 8(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, rendering the appeal defective and the court without jurisdiction

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal was filed outside the 30-day period in Rule 8(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules

Holding

The appeal was filed within time; the Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th April, 2022 was filed on 12th April, 2022, within 30 days of the judgment delivered on 15th or 18th March, 2022

Reasoning

The Respondents relied on the judgment and decree showing delivery on 27th January, 2022, but the court proceedings showed that on that date parties only confirmed filing of submissions and a judgment date of 15th March, 2022 was taken. The CTS evidence showed judgment delivered 15th March, 2022, and counsel averred it was delivered 18th March, 2022. Either date left the Memorandum of Appeal filed within 30 days.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal is filed when the Memorandum of Appeal is filed, not when the Record of Appeal is filed; time under Rule 8(2) runs from delivery of the decision to filing of the Memorandum of Appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondents' preliminary objection dated 3rd June, 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AJ
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Procedure) Rules, Rule 8(2); this being an appeal from the Magistrate's Court to the ELRC

Relief refused

#

Respondents' prayer that the appeal be struck out with costs

The court found the appeal was filed within time since time runs from filing of the Memorandum of Appeal, not the Record of Appeal

p. 3

Costs

Preliminary objection dismissed with no orders as to costs

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

the time for filing of Appeal is based on Memorandum of Appeal and not the Record of Appeal which is dependent on availability of typed proceedings, decree which may take time.
p. 3Commencement of time for filing an appeal
In conclusion the Respondents preliminary Objection dated 3rd June,2024 is found unmerited and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of preliminary objection

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment contains inconsistent statements on the date of delivery of the lower court's judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wakaba v Deputy County Commissioner Kajaido North Sub-County & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E050 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 136 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/136/eng@2025-01-24

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