Kenya Association of Health Workers Administration v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & 3 others; Kenya Health Professionals Society & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cannot rewrite its own judgment unless strict legal grounds for review are met — this union's request failed, with costs awarded against it.
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 is functus officio and bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner's application for review dated 30th October 2020
- 2.Whether the application meets the grounds for review under Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016
- 3.Whether the application is defective because the Petitioner is not a registered trade union
- 4.Whether the application was filed within reasonable time
Key legal issues
#Whether the court could review its judgment of 7th August 2020 under Rule 33(1)
The application for review failed because none of the Rule 33(1) grounds were established; the court was consequently functus officio
The court set out the four grounds for review — discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, and any other sufficient reason. It found no error apparent on the record, no clarification needed, and no newly discovered evidence exercisable with due diligence. The matters raised would, if anything, be grounds of appeal rather than review, and in the absence of statutory grounds the functus officio principle barred the court from revisiting its judgment.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application at all
Having delivered judgment, the court could only revisit the matter if a lawful ground of review existed; failing that, it had to down its tools
The court endorsed the general principle that a court after judgment becomes functus officio and cannot revisit its judgment on the merits save as provided by law. Review under Rule 33(1) is the statutory avenue, and since its criteria were not met, the challenge to jurisdiction succeeded and the application had to be dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- A court becomes functus officio after judgment and may revisit its decision only as provided by law; where no Rule 33(1) ground exists, the court has no jurisdiction to review its own judgment
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Petitioner's application for review dated 30th October 2020
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd Interested Party and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, Rule 33(1) (review jurisdiction); labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment delivered on 7th August 2020
None of the grounds for review under Rule 33(1) was satisfied — no error apparent on the face of the record, no clarification required, and no new and important evidence discovered after due diligence
Costs
Costs of the application to the 2nd Interested Party, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th 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.
Where a court seized of a matter is of the view that it lacks jurisdiction it must down its tools and not take one more step.
From the foregoing, it is clear the motion by the Petitioner/Applicant is incapable of grant as none of the grounds under Rule 33(1) are satisfied.
As no grounds exist for a review, I am functus officio and there is nothing to do other than dismiss the application by the Petitioner/Applicant with costs to the 2nd Interested Party, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Association of Health Workers Administration v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & 3 others; Kenya Health Professionals Society & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition (ELRC, Nairobi) — application for review dated 30th October 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1519/eng@2021-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.