Keronei v County Government of Uasin Gishu & another (Cause 37 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 958 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a bid for damages and costs, confirming that special damages claims must be fully pleaded and proved at trial, not won on paper applications.
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 Claimant's formal application for costs and assessment of damages could be granted on an interlocutory motion
- 2.Whether compliance by the Respondent with the Public Service Commission's reinstatement decision amounted to an admission of liability entitling the Claimant to damages
- 3.Whether the suit filed before exhausting the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act was void or an abuse of process
Key legal issues
#Effect of non-exhaustion of the Public Service Commission dispute resolution mechanism
The suit was filed before exhaustion of the statutory mechanism, but Section 87's mandatory terms do not void the suit; the Court may stay it in exceptional or urgent circumstances. No exceptional circumstances were shown here.
Section 74 allows an optional appeal ('may appeal') but Section 87 prohibits court proceedings before exhaustion ('shall not file'). The Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot be absolutely ousted, so rather than rendering the suit void the Court reserves the right to stay it where urgency or injustice demands. The Claimant concurrently invoked both forums, amounting to forum shopping, and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing Section 87.
Whether PSC compliance equalled admission of liability
The Respondent's reinstatement of the Claimant was in compliance with the PSC decision and did not amount to admission of the Claimant's court claim.
The PSC decision preceded the hearing of the suit and both parties confirmed compliance. The PSC's directions are not binding on a dissatisfied party in court, and complying with them cannot be construed as an admission of the claims in the suit. The presumption underlying the damages claim therefore fails.
Competence of the Motion for costs and damages
The Motion was incompetent as it sought final, substantive relief (special damages) on an interlocutory application, and was struck out with costs.
The prayers raised new claims in the nature of special damages which require pleading and strict proof through oral evidence at a full trial. Affidavit evidence on an interlocutory application cannot sustain such relief. The Motion was in substance a fresh suit deviating from the main claim, whose substratum had already been addressed and honoured through the PSC decision.
Legal principles established
#- A suit filed contrary to the mandatory wording of Section 87 of the Public Service Commission Act is not thereby void; the Court retains discretion to stay such a suit pending exhaustion of internal mechanisms, particularly in urgent cases.
- Decisions or directions of the Public Service Commission do not bind a dissatisfied party from litigating the same facts before the Court, but internal remedies must first be exhausted.
- Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved through evidence at a full hearing and cannot be awarded on an interlocutory application.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion seeking costs and assessment of damages is struck out with costs
- 2.IT IS ordered accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction derived from the Constitution; dispute concerns County Public Service and the Public Service Commission Act (Sections 74, 85, 87, 99 County Government Act also cited)
Relief refused
#Award of costs of the suit to the Claimant by way of the formal application
The Motion raised new substantive claims incapable of being granted on an interlocutory application and was incompetent
Assessment of damages for reputational loss, psychological torture and negative CRB listing
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved through evidence at a full trial, not on affidavit evidence
Costs
The Motion is struck out with 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.
It is ordered.
From the foregoing, the Court finds and holds that the motion as filed is incompetent as it seeks orders only capable of being granted upon a merit hearing and not on an interlocutory application. The same is therefore struck out with costs.
The Court however holds the view that the crafting in mandatory terms of the provisions of Section 87 does not render a suit filed contrary to the provisions of the section void.
They are in nature special damages which must be pleaded and strictly proved. Evidence would need to be led in an oral hearing to prove them.
The decision or directions given by Public Service Commission in exercise of its powers under the Act are not binding and a party is free to challenge the same before the Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, parties' names or neutral citation anywhere on its face.
The judgment refers to a '2nd Respondent' though the coram and heading identify only a single Respondent.
The judgment is styled as arising from a 'ruling' reference in its own text but concludes with 'It is ordered' without enumerating formal orders.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keronei v County Government of Uasin Gishu & another (Cause 37 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 958 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/958/eng@2023-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.