Republic v Kenya Pipeline & Lighting Company Limited; Kaluli (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E022 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2699 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 judicial review application is time barred under the applicable limitation provisions
- 2.Whether the criminal acquittal absolved the ex parte applicant from the internal disciplinary dismissal
- 3.Whether certiorari and mandamus should issue to quash the dismissal and compel reinstatement and payment
Key legal issues
#Limitation of the judicial review application
The application was filed out of time; the three years under section 90 of the Employment Act lapsed on 26.05.2023, the six months for certiorari under Order 53 had lapsed, and the three years under section 12 of the ELRC Act had lapsed
The dismissal letter was dated 26.05.2021 and the administrative appeal was rejected on 16.11.2021. The application was filed on 09.05.2024, beyond all applicable statutory periods. The Court held that limitation periods cannot be expanded under the prevailing statutory provisions and the applicant's failure to act promptly left him trapped by limitation.
Effect of criminal acquittal on disciplinary dismissal
The disciplinary proceedings were distinct from the criminal case and the acquittal did not invalidate the dismissal
The Court accepted the respondent's position that internal disciplinary processes and criminal processes are independent, and that the acquittal under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not absolve the applicant from accountability under the Code of Conduct. Nothing prevented the applicant from promptly challenging the dismissal without waiting for the criminal outcome.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review proceedings challenging an employment dismissal are subject to limitation, including the six-month period for certiorari under Order 53 and the three-year period under section 12 of the ELRC Act, and internal disciplinary processes and criminal processes are independent
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review proceedings are dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Certiorari to quash the dismissal and appeal rejection
Time barred - the six months limitation under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules had lapsed
Mandamus for reinstatement and payment of withheld salaries and compensation
The three years under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act 2011 had lapsed
General damages for malicious prosecution
Claims were unmerited and the proceedings were dismissed as time barred
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
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.
It appears to the Court that the proceedings are time barred because the three years of limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 have since lapsed.
In any event certiorari may not issue as 6 months of limitation under order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules attached to grant of the order have lapsed.
Again, mandamus for reinstatement order may not issue since three years attached under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act 2011 have since lapsed.
In conclusion, the judicial review proceedings are hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#The complainant customer's name appears inconsistently as 'Alice Akumu Ongeri' in the applicant's case and 'Alice Akumu Orengo' in the respondent's reply
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Pipeline & Lighting Company Limited; Kaluli (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E022 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2699 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Proceedings (Notice of Motion dated 09.05.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2699/eng@2024-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.