Kenya Agricultural Research Institute v Kariuki & 16 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to reverse its own award of KShs.350,000 to 17 former employees, confirming that asking it to review its judgment rarely works.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has power and mandate to review its judgment
- 2.Whether the applicant has satisfied the condition precedent for this Court to review its judgment delivered on 21st December 2018
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal has power to review its own judgment
Yes - the Court has residual jurisdiction to review its decisions, as settled in Benjoh Amalgamated and subsequent cases, but it is exceptional and exercised with circumspection
The Court traced the jurisprudence from Nguruman, Benjoh, Standard Chartered Financial Services, Muktu Munge and Niels Bruel, concluding that although not explicitly conferred statutorily, a court of final resort has residual jurisdiction to reopen decided matters in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice, balancing the finality principle against the justice principle.
Whether the applicant met the threshold for review
No - the applicant's grounds amounted to an invitation to revisit the merits and reasoning of both appeals, which would be re-sitting on its own appeal, not a review
The Court distilled three prerequisites from Standard Chartered: reopening a concluded matter (singular), interests of justice of all parties, and injustice outweighing finality. The applicant's submissions sought to displace the reasoning in the second appeal using the first appeal's conclusions, and the parties were polarized over the award rather than addressing the overriding injustice/finality balance.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has residual jurisdiction to review and reopen its own concluded decisions, exercisable only in exceptional situations where the need to obviate injustice outweighs the principle of finality in litigation
- The review jurisdiction is limited to reopening 'a matter', not 'matters', and cannot be used to revisit conclusions in a different, related appeal
- A party cannot use the review jurisdiction to invite the Court to sit on appeal over its own decision; the remedy for an erroneous conclusion of law is an appeal to the Supreme Court
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 30th January 2019 seeking review, setting aside and/or rescission of the order allowing the cross-appeal and awarding KShs.350,000 for each cross-appellant is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru (the court's own judgment of 21st December 2018, arising from the High Court/Industrial Court judgment of B. Ongaya, J. dated 3rd May 2013)
- Nakuru Industrial Court Petition No. 2 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 42 and 57(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, section 3B(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Articles 27(1) and 50(1) of the Constitution; residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions as crystallized in Benjoh Amalgamated
Relief refused
#Review, setting aside and/or rescission of the order allowing the cross-appeal and awarding each cross-appellant KShs.350,000 compensation, and substitution with an order dismissing the cross-appeal
The Court's residual review jurisdiction is exceptional; the applicant's submissions amounted to an invitation to re-sit on its own appeal, and the need to obviate injustice did not outweigh the principle of finality
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
this Court is clothed with residual jurisdiction to reopen and rehear a concluded matter where the interest of justice demands, but that such jurisdiction will only be exercised in exceptional situations where the need to obviate injustice outweighs the principle of finality in litigation.
We reiterate our mandate is limited to revisiting and reopening “a matter” and not “matters”.
If we were to venture into that arena, we would definitely be re-sitting on our own appeal and not a review.
we find no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the second appeal inconsistently as Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2015 and No. 305 of 2015
The applicant is described as 'appellant' in its own written submissions quoted by the Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Agricultural Research Institute v Kariuki & 16 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal 315 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/534/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.