Adel v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd (Appeal E003 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 694 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that 2023 practice directions cannot revive already-decided work injury (WIBA) cases—new jurisdiction rules only apply to cases still pending.
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 meets the threshold for review of the judgment of 13th October, 2022
- 2.whether the Chief Justice's Practice Directions of 28th April, 2023 on WIBA matters apply retrospectively to a matter already determined
Key legal issues
#Whether the Practice Directions of 28th April 2023 conferred jurisdiction retrospectively so as to ground review of a judgment that had declined jurisdiction over a WIBA claim
They did not; the Directions apply only to pending matters and cannot revive finalized claims or decisions
Paragraph 7(a) and (b) of the Practice Directions address claims filed after commencement of WIBA and before the Supreme Court decision, and pending judgments and rulings, requiring them to be handled by the same court. The court construed this as forward-looking. Since both the Magistrates' Court (11/12/2020) and the ELRC (13/10/2022) had already rendered decisions declining jurisdiction, the later grant of jurisdiction was not a ground for review under Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33.
The threshold for review under Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Review lies on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason
The court restated the grounds for review and found that a Gazette Notice conferring jurisdiction post-decision falls within none of them. The applicant's motion was premised solely on the Gazette Notice, and no new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the record was demonstrated, so the threshold was not met.
Legal principles established
#- Practice Directions on WIBA jurisdiction gazetted on 28th April, 2023 do not apply retrospectively to matters already finalized and determined; they apply only to pending matters
- Retrospective effect is not to be given to law unless by express words or necessary implication; laws are generally forward-looking
- Conferral of jurisdiction on a court after it has already rendered its decision does not amount to a ground for review of that decision
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 27th October, 2023 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21), Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act as read with Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment delivered on 13th October, 2022 in light of the Practice Directions issued vide Kenya Gazette Notice No. 5476
The Practice Directions were not meant to apply retrospectively to finalized matters; they apply only to pending matters, and the conferral of jurisdiction after the decisions were rendered is not a ground for review
Costs of the application to be in the cause
The motion was dismissed with costs to the Respondent instead
Costs
The motion is dismissed with 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.
the directions were not meant to have a retrospective application for matters that have been finalized, and would therefore only be applicable to pending matters
Laws should generally be forward looking and restrospectivity of the law is an exception rather than the general rule
The granting of jursidcition to these courts after the Courts had rendered their decisions, does not in my view amount to a ground for review of the decisions already made.
In the final analysis, I find the motion lacking in merit, and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the judgment sought to be reviewed is stated inconsistently - the motion's prayer cites 13/10/2023 while the body repeatedly cites 13th October, 2022
The Respondent's averment dates the cut-off for finalized matters as 28th April, 2022 rather than 28th April, 2023 (the gazettement date)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adel v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd (Appeal E003 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 694 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/694/eng@2024-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.