Alexander Kasina Mukala v Kenya Power & Lighting Company [2021] KEELRC 1476 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ruled it cannot extend time to appeal its own judgment — once it delivers judgment, its only path upward is the Court of 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 court should grant leave to the claimant to file an appeal/counter appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the court retains jurisdiction, post-judgment and post-ruling, to enlarge time for filing an appeal against its own decision
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to enlarge time to appeal against the court's own judgment
The court lacks jurisdiction; having rendered itself on the judgment and the ruling on stay, it is functus officio and the leave sought cannot issue
The court held that once it delivered judgment on 9th October 2018 and a ruling on stay on 20th February 2019, it had exhausted its mandate. The claimant's remedy against the judgment is an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the ELRC Act, 2011 read with Article 164(3) of the Constitution, not an application back to the same court. Rule 8 of the Court Rules governs appeals lodged with the ELRC from subordinate courts and statutory officers, not appeals from its own decisions.
Scope of Rule 8 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Rule 8 applies to appeals to the ELRC from subordinate courts, the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Director of Occupational Health and Safety, not to appeals against ELRC judgments
The court analysed the Rule and held that appeals to the ELRC can only emanate from subordinate courts and from decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Director of Occupational Health and Safety under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007. Reading Rule 8 as permitting an appeal against the court's own judgment would be a serious misreading of the law. Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Act on enlargement of time must be read in the same context.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC is functus officio after delivering judgment and any appeal against its decisions lies to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the ELRC Act and Article 164(3) of the Constitution
- Rule 8 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 does not regulate appeals against the ELRC's own judgments; it governs appeals lodged with the court from subordinate courts and statutory bodies
Court orders
#- 1.Applications filed by the claimant seeking leave to file appeal and/or counter-appeal out of time are dismissed
- 2.Costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and Article 164(3) of the Constitution (appeals lie to the Court of Appeal); original jurisdiction under the ELRC Act and Court Rules
Relief refused
#Leave for the claimant to be properly on record and file his appeal/counter-appeal out of time
The court had become functus officio after delivering judgment and ruling on stay; appeals against ELRC decisions lie to the Court of Appeal, and Rule 8 of the Court Rules does not regulate appeals against the court's own decisions
Costs
Costs to the respondent.
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.
On the judgement and ruling on stay of execution, the court stood functus officio. It had rendered itself.
This rule does not regulate appeals against the judgement and orders from the court itself. To take it as such would be a serious misreading of the law.
The court having rendered itself, the orders sought to extend time to file an appeal and or a counter appeal out of time is denied of this court. Such orders cannot issue through whatever craft. The court lack such mandate and jurisdiction.
Accordingly, applications filed by the claimant seeking leave to file appeal and or counter-appeal out of time are hereby dismissed. Costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states two different delivery dates for the judgment: 9th October 2018 in the grounds and submissions, but 19th October 2018 in the Determination
The claimant's submissions cite section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act for enlargement of time, while the determination analyses section 8 of the same Act
The respondent's submissions attribute section 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act as prescribing time for lodging an appeal, an apparently mistaken citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alexander Kasina Mukala v Kenya Power & Lighting Company [2021] KEELRC 1476 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1476/eng@2021-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.