Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text· [2025] KEELRC 918 (KLR)

Dancan Ayiecha Ogeto v East Africa Cans & Closures Limited (Miscellaneous Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 918 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
21 March 2025
ANAgnes Kitiku Nzei
2,721 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court reviewed its own earlier ruling because it decided facts before settling whether it even had jurisdiction over a DOSHS work injury award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant had moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 14th February 2024 seeking adoption of a Director of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSHS) award of Kshs. 456,049 under the Work Injury Benefits Act. The Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection contending, principally, that the Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce DOSHS decisions. In a ruling delivered on 31st July 2024 (Dr. Jacob Gakeri, J), the Court struck out the motion on the basis that the DOSH Forms 1 and 4 were incomplete and unauthenticated, without determining the jurisdictional question raised by the objection. The Applicant then filed the Notice of Motion dated 24th September 2024 seeking review of that ruling under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Orders 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, citing a fault of the e-filing system and an error apparent on the face of the record. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was frivolous and an attempt to revive a dead suit. Agnes Kitiku Nzei, J framed a single issue: whether review of the 31st July 2024 ruling was deserved. Holding that the earlier ruling had failed to determine the pure question of law of jurisdiction before delving into disputed matters of fact - a mistake apparent on the face of the record and a sufficient reason for review under Rule 74(1)(d) - and that the application was filed within reasonable time, the Court allowed the review, quashed the 31st July 2024 ruling, and gave directions for compilation and exchange of hard copies, with each party bearing its own costs of the review application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court's Ruling of 31st July 2024 should be reviewed under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Holding

The review was granted: the earlier ruling failed to determine the jurisdiction question raised in the Preliminary Objection and instead determined factual matters, amounting to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and a sufficient reason for review under Rule 74(1)(d).

Reasoning

The Respondent's Preliminary Objection had raised the single issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to enforce DOSHS decisions. The prior ruling skipped that pure question of law and went into questions of fact (the completeness and stamping of the DOSH forms) which could only be reached after jurisdiction was settled. Citing Munene v King'ara, the court held jurisdiction must be determined first; failing to do so was an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and quashing of the ruling.

p. 6
02

Whether the review application was filed within reasonable time

Holding

Yes - the application filed approximately 2½ months after the ruling was within a reasonable time, with no unreasonable delay.

Reasoning

The ruling sought to be reviewed was delivered on 31st July 2024 and the review application filed on 18th October 2024. The court found this approximately 2½ month interval reasonable under Rule 74, which requires an application 'within reasonable time'. No unreasonable delay was found.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law that must be determined at the outset before any other issue.
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long drawn process of reasoning.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court's Ruling delivered on 31st July, 2024 is reviewed and quashed
  2. 2.The Applicant shall compile a hard copy of his Notice of Motion dated 14th February, 2024, duly bound and paginated, including the affidavits, annextures and court receipts, and file and serve it within 7 days
  3. 3.The Respondent shall file and serve a response to the application dated 14th February, 2024 within 7 days of service, and place a hard copy on record
  4. 4.Directions on disposal of the application and/or any preliminary objection to be taken on 12th May, 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Orders 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dancan Ayiecha Ogeto v East Africa Cans & Closures Limited (Miscellaneous Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 918 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/918/eng@2025-03-21

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