West Kenya Sugar CO Ltd v Tito Lucheli Tangale [2021] KEELRC 1920 (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 the trial Magistrate had jurisdiction over work injury benefit claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act filed on 8 June 2017
- 2.What is the status of legal proceedings instituted in the Courts after 2 June 2008 when WIBA commenced
Key legal issues
#Status of section 16 of WIBA and court jurisdiction during the period of judicial challenges
Claims lodged with the Courts between 22 May 2008 (interlocutory stay of section 16) and 3 December 2019 (Supreme Court judgment) were validly within the jurisdiction of the Courts
The High Court stayed section 16 on 22 May 2008 and declared it unconstitutional on 4 March 2009; the Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application on 10 July 2009, so the declaration remained law until the Court of Appeal judgment of 17 November 2017. Absent any Supreme Court stay, litigants filed claims relying on judge-declared law, which remained valid until set aside.
Access to justice under Articles 48 and 159(2)(c)
Adopting the Appellant's position would defeat the constitutional right of access to justice and expose claimants to an insurmountable limitation plea under section 26 WIBA
Employees who moved the courts after 22 May 2008 did so on the assurance of judge-declared law. Directing them to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health at that stage would expose them to a limitation bar under section 26 WIBA regarding reporting of accidents, causing great injustice for reasons beyond their control.
Legitimate expectation
Litigants who filed claims between 22 May 2008 and 3 December 2019 in reliance on judge-declared law may assert legitimate expectation to have their claims concluded by the courts
Following the approach of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the Law Society of Kenya litigation, which used legitimate expectation to protect claimants with pre-WIBA pending cases, the Court extended the doctrine to those who filed on the strength of judge-declared law during the period of uncertainty.
Legal principles established
#- Until set aside or vacated, a court order, including judge-made or judge-declared law, is valid and litigants may order their affairs in reliance on it
- All work-injury claims lodged with the Courts between 22 May 2008 and 3 December 2019 were validly within the jurisdiction of the Courts, absent stay orders
- Litigants who filed disputes during that period can assert legitimate expectation to have their claims heard to conclusion by the Courts
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is dismissed
- 2.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates Court
- Cause lodged 8 June 2017 (number not stated)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates Court matter transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court by the High Court on 29 April 2019 citing lack of jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Appeal against the Magistrate's ruling on jurisdiction
The Court found the Magistrate did not fall into error of law or fact in finding he had jurisdiction
Costs
No order on 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.
The Appeal is dismissed. No order on costs.
From the foregoing, the Court finds no merit in the Appeal. The Learned Magistrate did not fall into error of law or fact in finding that he had the jurisdiction to proceed with the suit before him.
In the Court's respectful view, bar any stay orders, all claims which were lodged with the Courts from 22 May 2008 to 3 December 2019 being claims underpinned by judge-made or judge declared law were validly within the jurisdiction of the Courts.
What is clear to this Court is that until set aside and or vacated, a Court order and this includes judgemade law or judge declared law is valid, and a litigant or citizen can order his or her life in the firm belief that the declared law is the law at the particular point in time.
are entitled to successfully assert legitimate expectation in having the claims heard to a conclusion before the Courts where they had been lodged.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency regarding the commencement of section 16 ouster: paragraph 32/33 confuse 2 June 2008 and 22 May 2008
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar CO Ltd v Tito Lucheli Tangale [2021] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal from Kakamega CMCC (not stated in judgment; Memorandum of Appeal filed in High Court, Kakamega on 26 September 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1920/eng@2021-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.