James Nyangiye & others v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 1101 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment on quantum delivered on 2nd June 2017 warranting review
- 2.Whether the applicants were parties to the suit capable of seeking review under Rule 33
- 3.Whether persons omitted from a concluded suit can be enjoined through a review application
Key legal issues
#Whether the omission of names from the judgment on quantum constituted an error apparent on the face of the record
No error existed because the court merely adopted the list of claimants jointly prepared and presented by the parties, effectively a consent
The parties had agreed in the judgment of 4th February 2015 to file a full list/matrix of claimants. The list adopted was jointly compiled. The applications attached over 5,000 names allegedly omitted, which exceeds the numbers in the suit, making the claim implausible. Since the court adopted what the parties jointly presented, the applicants must meet the threshold for setting aside consent orders, which they did not satisfy.
Whether non-parties can apply for review and be joined through review
Rule 33 contemplates review only by a person who was a party to the suit; a person cannot be enjoined to a concluded suit through review
Rule 33 permits a person aggrieved by a decree or order from which no appeal is preferred to apply for review, but such a person must be a party capable of appealing. The applicants seek joinder, which is a distinct mechanism. One cannot be joined so as to benefit from a judgment in a concluded suit.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order adopted by the court can only be set aside or varied on grounds such as fraud, collusion, or given without sufficient material facts
- Only a party to a suit may apply for review; a non-party cannot be enjoined to a concluded suit by way of review
Court orders
#- 1.The applications dated 14th July 2017 and 24th July 2017 are dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
- Consolidated with
- Nakuru HCCC No. 395 of 2001 Peter Baiye Gichuhi and Others -v- The Hon. Attorney General consolidated with Nairobi HCC No. 1649 of 2001
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment on quantum to include over 5,000 additional names of claimants
No error on the face of the record; the court only adopted the list jointly presented by the parties, and the applicants are not parties to the suit and cannot be enjoined by way of review
Costs
Each party shall bear its own 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.
In conclusion I find no merit in the applications and dismiss the same. Each party shall bear its costs.
A person who is not already a party to a suit can also not seek to be enjoined so as to benefit from the judgment or decree of a court in a suit that has already been concluded.
There was no error on the part of the court or apparent on the face of the record as the court only adopted what was presented to it jointly by the parties.
This court does not have the benefit of pleadings in the said suits to enable it confirm the same, they can only be included in the computation if they can prove they were parties.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates of the judgment on quantum: the first application refers to a judgment on quantum 'dated and delivered on the 26th day of May 2017' while the second application and the grounds refer to a 'judgment on quantum delivered on the 2nd June 2017'
Inconsistent reference to the judgment setting out the parties' agreements: the court states 'In the judgment delivered on 4th February 2016' although elsewhere the judgment of 4th February 2015 is referenced
Typographical errors in citations and dates, e.g. 'ri 9961 LLR 469 TCAK1' and 'Rules 20016'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Nyangiye & others v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 1101 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1101/eng@2018-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.