Malongo v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd (Appeal E004 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that 2023 directions on workplace injury claims do not reopen cases already finally decided.
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 apply retrospectively to a matter already determined
Key legal issues
#Whether the Practice Directions of 28th April, 2023 confer a basis for review of a judgment already delivered declining WIBA jurisdiction
No. The directions apply only to pending matters, not to matters already finalized and determined.
The court found that the Practice Directions vested jurisdiction in the ELRC and Magistrates' Courts for WIBA matters filed before the Supreme Court decision, but their wording targets pending claims and pending judgments and rulings. Both courts had already rendered decisions declining jurisdiction. Construing the directions retrospectively so as to reopen concluded judgments was impermissible, as retrospectivity is an exception not to be presumed absent express words or necessary implication. Hence no ground for review existed.
The statutory basis and threshold for review under Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Review is available on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason; none was established.
The court set out the review threshold and found the motion premised solely on a Gazette notice issuing Practice Directions. Since the directions did not apply retrospectively to finalized matters, the motion did not meet any of the review grounds, and was found lacking in merit and dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Retrospective application of a law or direction is not presumed; laws should generally be forward-looking and retrospectivity is an exception
- Review jurisdiction requires discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 27th October, 2023 seeking review of the judgment of 13th October, 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application 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
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act as read with Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Order 45 Rules 1 & 2, Order 50 Rules 6 & 7, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment delivered on 13/10/2022 in light of the Practice Directions issued vide Kenya Gazette Notice No. 5476
The Practice Directions were not meant to have retrospective application to matters already finalized and determined; vesting of jurisdiction after decisions had been rendered is not a ground for review
Costs
Costs of the application 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.
My reading and/or intepretation of the foregoning excepts of the Practice Directions, is that 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.
In the final analysis, I find the motion lacking in merit, and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Laws should generally be forward looking and restrospectivity of the law is an exception rather than the general rule.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed: described variously as delivered on 13/10/2023 and 13th October, 2022
Respondent's affidavit refers to Practice Directions dated 28th April, 2022 whereas the Gazette Notice is of 28th April, 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malongo v Abbysinia Iron & Steel Company Ltd (Appeal E004 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/695/eng@2024-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.