Akoko v National Police Service Commission (Civil Appeal 686 of 2021) [2024] KECA 485 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that review only fixes obvious errors on a court record; disputed facts and arguments belong in an appeal, not a review application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in declining to find that the appellant had demonstrated errors on the face of the record sufficient to warrant review
- 2.Whether the learned Judge erred in holding that an issue which affords a good ground of appeal does not afford a good ground for review
- 3.Whether the appellant had provided sufficient reasons to warrant review of the judgment
Key legal issues
#What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record under rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, requiring no detailed examination of evidence, facts or law; a possibly correct view or one requiring argument is not such an error.
The court adopted the classic formulation in Muyodi v ICDC: a mere erroneous decision is distinct from an error apparent on the face of the record, which arises only where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face admitting no two opinions. The appellant's claims about panel composition required examining the Hansard, minutes, and probabilities about whether a commissioner who stepped out returned; these are matters for examination and argument on appeal, not self-evident errors reviewable under rule 33.
Whether the 'any other sufficient reason' limb of rule 33 was satisfied by the grounds of unfair hearing and bias
No. The grounds required thorough review of the evidence and were fit for appeal; the learned Judge's discretion in refusing review was properly exercised and would not be interfered with.
Rule 33 confers an unfettered discretion on the court regarding what amounts to 'any other sufficient reason'. The court found the Judge had exercised that discretion appropriately, having found the appellant was heard by both panels for substantial periods, and that nothing indicated abridgement of his constitutional rights. Grounds requiring re-evaluation of evidence belong on appeal, not in a review application.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination or reasoning; issues requiring re-examination of evidence or argument are matters for appeal, not review.
- Where an issue affords a good ground of appeal, it does not afford a ground for review under rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissing an application for review (Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, rule 33)
Relief refused
#Review of the ELRC ruling of 22nd September 2021 / setting aside of the vetting dismissal decision
The matters raised required examination and argument and were fit for appeal, not review; the discretion of the learned Judge was properly exercised
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs (to the respondent, who though absent, is the successful party).
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.
If an error is not self-evident and requires a detailed explanation or reasoning, then it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
These examinations are not self-evident and cannot be the subject of a review. They are fit for appeal.
We find that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the vetting decision was delivered on 6th December 2012 in one passage and 6th December 2016 in another, an internal inconsistency.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- World Vision Kenya v Musau (Civil Application 134 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1924 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1924 (KLR)19 Nov 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akoko v National Police Service Commission (Civil Appeal 686 of 2021) [2024] KECA 485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/485/eng@2024-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.