Republic v Homa Bay County Government & 2 others; Odera & 118 others (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E044 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 497 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 119 former Homa Bay County workers' attempt to force payment of Kshs 31.9 million because their case was filed incorrectly and the disputed amount needed account reconciliation, not judicial review.
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 Motion was competent, given the requirements of Order 53 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether, if competent, the judicial review orders sought should issue to compel payment of the decretal sums alleged to be outstanding
Key legal issues
#Competency of the judicial review Motion under Order 53 Rule 4
The Motion was incompetent because the statutory statement and leave-stage affidavits were not attached, a fresh affidavit was filed without leave, and an Amended Motion was filed without leave.
Order 53 Rule 4 requires the ex-parte applicant to serve the Notice of Motion together with the statutory statement filed at the leave stage and the affidavits filed with the leave application. The applicants instead attached a fresh affidavit sworn on 11 January 2024 filed without leave, and introduced an Amended Motion with a new affidavit sworn on 17 January 2024 without seeking leave. These departures rendered the Motion incompetent.
Whether judicial review orders lie to compel payment of disputed decretal sums
No. The dispute over the outstanding balance is one requiring reconciliation of accounts and does not lend itself to judicial review; the discretion to grant review orders was declined.
The respondents did not deny owing a debt but disputed the quantum claimed. The applicants asserted a balance of Kshs 31,931,786/- while the respondents contended the outstanding balance was about Kshs 4,358,414/-, with some payments allegedly relating to other proceedings. The court held such a factual dispute over amounts must be resolved by reconciling accounts and cannot be adjudicated through judicial review, and that review orders may be declined even when otherwise warranted.
Legal principles established
#- A judicial review Motion must be served together with the statutory statement and affidavits filed at the leave stage, and an amended Motion filed without leave is incompetent.
- Judicial review is not the appropriate avenue to adjudicate disputes over the quantum of sums owing; the court retains discretion to decline review orders even where otherwise warranted.
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion and Amended Motion dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (leave granted 11 December 2023)
Relief refused
#Judicial review orders (mandamus-type orders) to compel payment of the alleged outstanding decretal balance of Kshs 31,931,786/-
The sums said to be due were not certain and the dispute required reconciliation of accounts, which is not suited to judicial review; also the Motion was incompetent
Costs
The Motion and Amended Motion dismissed with costs to the 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.
For the above reasons, the Court finds the present Motion incompetent.
the Court is not ready to exercise its discretion to grant an order of judicial review to compel payment when the sums said to be due are not certain
The Motion and Amended Motion is/are dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the judgment records that the ex-parte applicants filed an Amended Motion on 18 January 2024 but elsewhere states it was introduced on 17 January 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Homa Bay County Government & 2 others; Odera & 118 others (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E044 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 497 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Motion dated 11 December 2023 (as amended 18 January 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/497/eng@2024-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.