Katana v Tarmal Wire Products Limited (Appeal 20 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that older work injury appeals already filed remain valid despite new practice directions on WIBA claims.
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 has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal by reason of the provisions of the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007
- 2.Whether the Chief Justice's Practice Directions vide Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 28 April 2023 are capable of conferring jurisdiction on this court
- 3.Whether the preliminary objections dated 16 November 2023 have merit
Key legal issues
#Whether practice directions issued by the Chief Justice can confer jurisdiction on the court
The Practice Directions do not confer jurisdiction; rather, the court's jurisdiction arises from statute and the Constitution, and the Directions merely consolidate and standardise procedure to enhance access to justice
The court accepted the principle that practice directions have no force of law and cannot stand against a conflicting statutory rule. However, the impugned Directions were issued to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment and Articles 48 and 159 of the Constitution. Since the appeal was filed before the Directions and during the period when Section 16 of WIBA had been declared unconstitutional, the appellant had a legitimate expectation to be heard. The Directions therefore did not negate the law but facilitated access to justice.
Whether the appeal, filed in 2020 against a subordinate court judgment delivered after WIBA came into force, is properly before the court
Yes. The suit was filed in 2014 when the High Court had declared sections of WIBA including Section 16 unconstitutional, creating a legitimate expectation that pending and filed claims would proceed under the judicial regime invoked; the appeal is therefore properly before the court
The claim was lodged on 26 August 2014, after the High Court judgment in Petition No. 185 of 2008 had declared WIBA's provisions unconstitutional, and before the Court of Appeal decision of 17 November 2017 reversing that position. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal only on 4 December 2019, after this appeal had been lodged. The court held that litigants who invoked the judicial process under the then-operative law had a legitimate expectation that their matters would be heard to conclusion, and the Practice Directions did not disturb that expectation.
Legal principles established
#- Practice directions cannot stand against a conflicting statutory rule and have no force of law
- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation or both
- An order of the court remains valid unless reviewed, set aside or overturned on appeal, the issue of jurisdiction notwithstanding
- A preliminary objection must be raised on a pure point of law
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objections dated 16 November 2023 are dismissed
- 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Mombasa)
- CMEL Case No. 1677 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011; constitutional provisions on access to justice (Articles 48, 159, 161(2)(a))
Relief refused
#Striking out of the appeal with costs as sought by the respondent
The objections were found to be without merit; the appeal was filed before the Practice Directions and the appellant's legitimate expectation to be heard was not negated
Costs
Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
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.
Objections dated 16 November 2023 are without merit and are hereby dismissed. costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
the Practice Directions through Gazette Notice No.5476 of 28 April 2023 do not negate the law but apply to consolidate and standardise practice and procedures for the courts to enhance access to justice and to facilitate timely and eficient disposal of cases.
Practice directions provide a source of civil procedural law but do not have the force of law. they cannot stand against a confiicting statutory rule.
An order of the court remains valid unless it is reviewed, set aside or upon appeal, it is overturned
the principles under Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA are that a preliminary objection should be raised on a pure point of law
Issues in the judgment
#Case title and case number of the present appeal are not stated in the ruling; the ruling only references the lower court matter (Mombasa CMEL Case No. 1677 of 2014) and the Memorandum of Appeal filed 20 August 2020
The judgment states Section 16 of WIBA 'came into efiect on 12 November 2007' while elsewhere the Act is said to have commenced on 2 June 2008, and the respondent's submissions refer to matters 'filed from 22 May 2008'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katana v Tarmal Wire Products Limited (Appeal 20 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3458/eng@2023-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.