Nganga v Sinopec International Petroleum Services Corporation Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 57 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 834 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court reopened a worker's injury appeal after the Supreme Court clarified jurisdiction, confirming older rulings can be reviewed in changed circumstances.
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 Applicant has established grounds for review of the decision of Justice Monica Mbaru rendered on 23rd January, 2020
- 2.Whether there is sufficient reason under Rule 33(1)(d) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, in light of the Supreme Court decision and the Chief Justice's Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 28th April 2023, to review and set aside the judgment of 23rd January 2020
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC judgment of 23rd January 2020 declining jurisdiction could be reviewed under Rule 33(1)(d)
Yes. The Chief Justice's Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 28th April 2023 and the Supreme Court decision in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & COTU constituted sufficient reason for review.
The original judgment declined jurisdiction and set aside the trial court's decree, following the law prevailing before the Supreme Court clarified ELRC jurisdiction over pre-WIBA work-injury claims. The Chief Justice's subsequent practice directions directed that such claims proceed to conclusion in the courts where filed. Reviewing the judgment was necessary to avoid locking the litigant out of court entirely.
Whether the Respondent's functus officio objection defeats the review application
The objection failed; the court found sufficient reason to review its own judgment notwithstanding that it had earlier determined the appeal.
The Respondent argued the court was functus officio and that the judgment was proper under the law prevailing at the time. The court held the judgment was an honest error made before the practice directions clarified the position, and that the ends of justice and the litigant's constitutional right to a determination required review rather than reliance on functus officio.
Legal principles established
#- Parties who filed work-injury claims during the period of jurisdictional uncertainty had a legitimate expectation that their cases would be concluded before the courts where they were filed, per the Supreme Court decision and the Chief Justice's 2023 directions.
- A court may review its own judgment where an honest error, later clarified by subsequent directions, would otherwise lock an innocent litigant out of access to justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment and decree of this Court dated 23rd January 2020 (Justice Mbaru) is reviewed so that the appeal is allowed to proceed
- 2.Costs of the application to 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
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Naivasha
- CMCC No. 222 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50 of the Constitution; Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Determination of the Appellant's appeal on merits at this stage
The court only ordered that the appeal proceed; the appeal itself is to be heard and determined separately.
Costs
Costs will 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.
The parties who had filed cases in court during the ensuing period of uncertainty had a legitimate expectation that the said cases would be concluded before the courts where they had been filed.
In the circumstances, it is true that the Hon. Court made an error which was an honest error before the practice directions were issued.
It is therefore apt that the said orders be reviewed so that the appeal is allowed to proceed. There would be the orders of this court. Costs will abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent case numbers for the Naivasha suit - the judgment refers to both CMCC No. 222 of 2014 and Naivasha Civil Suit Number 222 of 2015
Inconsistent citation of the Gazette Notice number - given variously as 5476 and S476
Inconsistent Court of Appeal case number - the judgment refers to Nakuru COACA No 18 of 2020 in one passage and Appeal No 18 of 2022 in another
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nganga v Sinopec International Petroleum Services Corporation Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 57 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 25th January, 2024 (Arising from Naivasha CMCC Case Number 222 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/834/eng@2024-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.