Sum v Njaggah & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Constitutional Petition E130 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1638 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a teacher's bid to review a judgment it had already delivered, confirming that dissatisfaction with a ruling must be raised on appeal, not 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 applicant established any known ground for review of the judgment delivered on 23.02.2024, such as an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence
- 2.Whether the application amounts to a disguised appeal against the judgment
- 3.Whether the Court is functus officio having delivered its judgment
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the grounds raised disclosed a basis for review
The grounds amounted to dissatisfaction with the judgment's analysis, not any recognised ground for review
The Court found the applicant was asking it to change its analysis and findings. Review requires an error on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or another known ground. None was established. The grievances raised were matters for appeal to the Court of Appeal, not for review by a court that had fully pronounced itself.
Whether the Court retained jurisdiction over a decided matter
The Court is functus officio and cannot sit on appeal over its own decision
Having fully pronounced its opinion in the judgment of 23.02.2024, the Court had exhausted its jurisdiction. The 3rd respondent's grounds of opposition and the respondents' submissions that the Court lacks jurisdiction to re-try a decided case were adopted. A review application grounded on mere dissatisfaction is an abuse of process and a disguised appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A party dissatisfied with a first-instance judgment who cannot establish an error apparent on the face of the record, new evidence, or any other recognised ground for review must pursue the appellate route; the trial court becomes functus officio upon delivering judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 07.03.2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 23rd February 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 3A, 63(e) and 80(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Rules 33 and 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Article 159(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment of 23.02.2024 including orders of certiorari quashing the twin decisions of interdiction and warning
No error apparent on the face of the record, no new evidence, and no other known ground for review; the application amounts to dissatisfaction with the judgment and the proper path was an appeal; the Court is functus officio
Costs of the application
The Court directed each party to bear its own costs to foster workplace harmony as the parties remain in a relationship
Costs
Each party to bear own costs
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 applicant has not established an error on record or new evidence or any other known ground to justify the review.
The proper path was to invoke appeal process, as indeed, the Court is functus oficio as it has fully pronounced its opinion on the matters it is being invited to reconsider and change its analytical position and findings.
In conclusion the application is hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the decision sought to be reviewed as both a 'Judgement' in a petition; the underlying petition number and full party names are not reproduced in the excerpt provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sum v Njaggah & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Constitutional Petition E130 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 07.03.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1638/eng@2024-06-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.