Michael Kagoma Maina v Inspector General of Police & 2 others [2014] KEELRC 43 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it cannot review a delivered judgment just to wait for another court's decision—grievances over omitted issues belong on appeal.
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 judgment of Ongaya J delivered on 20 December 2013 should be reviewed to await the outcome of Embu High Court Civil Case No. 136 of 2011
- 2.Whether the judgment failed to comprehensively address the claims of malicious investigation and prosecution and damages for inhibited promotional progression
- 3.Whether the Claimant met the threshold for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010
- 4.Whether the review application was fatally defective for citing the wrong legal provisions
Key legal issues
#Whether pendency of related proceedings in another court constitutes a sufficient reason for review under Rule 32
No - awaiting another court's decision is not a sufficient reason for review
Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 provides five grounds for review: discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, decision in breach of written law, need for clarification, and sufficient reasons. The Claimant invoked none of the first four grounds. The court held that the doctrine of comity and the delimitation of jurisdiction mean a delivered judgment cannot be revisited merely to await another court's outcome; parties should make material disclosures to each court so jurisdiction can be delimited.
Whether failure to cite the correct legal provisions is fatal to a review application
No, provided no prejudice results to the opposing party
The Respondents objected that the Claimant anchored the review on the wrong provisions of law. The court held that since the Respondents were not prejudiced by the mis-citation, the objection did not defeat the application. In any event, the application failed on the merits, so the point was academic.
Whether the alleged failure to address malicious prosecution and inhibited promotional progression warrants review
No - the malicious prosecution claim belongs to the Embu High Court and the promotional progression complaint lies on appeal
The gravamen of the Embu High Court case is malicious prosecution, which remains pending there; the Industrial Court decided only the employment question. An allegation that the trial court failed to address an argued issue is a ground of appeal, not a ground of review, since it does not fall within any of the Rule 32 grounds.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot, as a sufficient reason for review, stay or review its judgment to await the decision of another competent court on parallel proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.The motion filed in Court on 17 July 2014 seeking review of the judgment of 20 December 2013 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, Rule 32 (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Review of the 20 December 2013 judgment to await the outcome of Embu High Court Civil Case No. 136 of 2011
The Court has no power to review a delivered judgment to await another decision of a competent court
Review on the ground that the judgment did not address malicious prosecution and inhibited promotional progression
The malicious prosecution claim is pending before the Embu High Court, and the promotional progression issue should be taken on appeal
Costs
The motion filed on 17 July 2014 was 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 has no power and it cannot be a sufficient reason to review a judgment already delivered to await another decision of a competent Court exercising its jurisdiction.
The Court is not satisfied that the Claimant has met the threshold for review of the judgment delivered on 20 December 2013. The upshot being that the motion filed in Court on 17 July 2014 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
On the question of inhibited promotional progression, this is an issue which the Claimant should properly take up on appeal.
Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 provide 5 grounds upon which if satisfied, the Court may review its decisions.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's title/heading and case number are not reproduced in the excerpt, and the Respondents are referred to only generically as 'Respondents' without being named individually.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Kagoma Maina v Inspector General of Police & 2 others [2014] KEELRC 43 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/43/eng@2014-12-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.