Kamanja & 28 others v Board of Management Highway Secondary School (Cause 192 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2693 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed the Attorney General's bid to overturn a 2020 workers' compensation judgment, because the same arguments had already been raised and rejected.
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 application dated 01.07.2024 seeking stay of execution, setting aside of the judgment of 09.04.2020 and striking out of the Statement of Claim is competent and properly before the Court
- 2.Whether the application is res judicata and an abuse of court process given prior applications dated 10.11.2020, 18.05.2022, 31.10.2022 and 27.11.2023
- 3.Whether the Court can evaluate the disputed factual allegations of forgery, deceased parties and non-existent claimants raised in the application
Key legal issues
#Abuse of court process and res judicata
The application was res judicata and an abuse of court process because the same issues had been raised and determined in the respondent's prior applications and the correct review procedure was not invoked.
The Court found the application repeated issues already urged in earlier applications dated 18.05.2022, 31.10.2022 and 27.11.2023 which had been determined. Further, the applicant invoked Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules though those rules did not apply; the application was in substance a review which should have been brought under the Court's review rules. The factual allegations ought to have been raised at the hearing of the main suit or in the subsequent applications, with due diligence, but were not.
Jurisdiction to evaluate disputed facts
Given the finding of abuse of process and res judicata, the Court lacked jurisdiction to evaluate the disputed factual allegations (forgery, deceased claimants, non-existent parties).
Because the application was incompetently framed and res judicata, the Court declined to make findings one way or the other on the disputed facts, noting that parties may in any event reach agreements during satisfaction or execution of the decree that meet the ends of justice.
Legal principles established
#- An application in the nature of review must be brought under the Court's review rules; invoking general procedural provisions such as Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules where they do not apply renders the application an abuse of process.
- A court cannot, on an incompetently framed application, descend into evaluation of disputed factual matters; where the application is res judicata it lacks jurisdiction to make findings on the disputed facts.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 01.07.2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution, sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (as invoked by the applicant); the Court found the proper route was the Court's own review rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment delivered 09.04.2020
The application was an abuse of court process, res judicata, and invoked inapplicable procedural rules (Order 50 CPR) instead of the review rules
Setting aside of the proceedings and judgment of 09.04.2020
Matter in substance a review application not brought under the correct rules; allegations should have been raised at the hearing or in subsequent applications
Striking out of the Statement of Claim dated 19.02.2019
Application dismissed in its entirety
Costs
The application dated 01.07.2024 is dismissed with costs to the claimants
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 failed to invoke the rules of the Court and instead decided to invoke Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules in circumstances that the rules did not apply in the circumstances of the application.
The instant application is urged upon facts and allegations of evidence which with due diligence, ought to have been urged at the hearing of the main suit or in the subsequent applications as urged and submitted for the claimants but which was not done at all.
the Court considers that the Court lacks jurisdiction to delve into and to evaluate towards make findings, one way or the other, on the disputed matters of fact raised in the application.
In conclusion the application filed herein dated 01.07.2024 is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently names the same individual as 'Eudita Wamboi' and 'Eudita Wambui' in the respondent's averments.
The claim is described as instituted by 29 claimants while the adopted computation covers 30 claimants; the judgment records the dispute but does not resolve it.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamanja & 28 others v Board of Management Highway Secondary School (Cause 192 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2693 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 01.07.2024 in ELRC Cause (Judgment by Byram Ongaya J delivered 09.04.2020, Claim filed 20.02.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2693/eng@2024-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.