County Government of Wajir & another v Public Service Commission (Judicial Review Application E048 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2700 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to let a litigant use judicial review to reopen a Commission decision the court had already turned into its own judgment.
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 court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to apply for judicial review where the impugned decision of the Public Service Commission has already been adopted as a decree of the ELRC
- 2.Whether the court is functus officio over the subject matter of the application
- 3.Whether the application is an abuse of court process
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction/functus officio
The court lacks jurisdiction and is functus officio because the Commission's decision sought to be reviewed was already recognized, adopted and enforced as the Court's decree in ELRC Petition No. E047 of 2024.
Counsel for the applicants confirmed that the leave sought concerned the Commission's decision already adopted as the Court's decision. Having adopted and enforced that decision as a decree, the court cannot direct the Commission to review the same decision, as that would amount to sitting on appeal over its own judgment. The proper avenue is the Court of Appeal.
Abuse of court process
The application for leave to seek judicial review is an abuse of court process.
Because the applicant's leave application was a subject of the Commission's decision already adopted as the Court's decision, pursuing judicial review of the same decision in these proceedings amounts to a collateral attempt to revisit a judgment of the court, which is an abuse of process warranting dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- A judicial officer's application for leave for judicial review that seeks review of a decision already adopted as a decree of the court is an abuse of court process.
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the chamber summons dated 08.09.2024 is 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
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26, and the Fair Administrative Action Act
Relief refused
#Leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the respondent's decision decided on 19.06.2024 and transmitted vide letter dated 24.06.2024
The leave sought relates to the Commission's decision already adopted as a decision of the Court; the application is an abuse of court process
Leave operating as stay of the respondent's decision
The entire application was dismissed on jurisdiction and abuse-of-process grounds
Leave to apply for orders of mandamus compelling the respondent to admit the applicant's Application for Review dated 30.06.2024
The Commission had already determined the administrative review application before its decision was adopted by the Court, and reviewing it now would amount to sitting on appeal over the Court's judgment
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings (both are public bodies).
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 case as urged for the respondent is upheld on all grounds.
The Court finds for the respondent that the application for leave for judicial review application to be filed is indeed an abuse of Court process.
In conclusion, the application by the chamber summons dated 08.09.2024, is hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Date inconsistency: the chamber summons is described as dated 08.09.2023 in the opening paragraph but dated 08.09.2024 in the concluding order
Date inconsistency: the respondent's decision is said to have been decided on 19.06.2024 while the decision being challenged is elsewhere referred to as dated 06.09.2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Wajir & another v Public Service Commission (Judicial Review Application E048 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2700 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Nairobi, Judicial Review chamber summons dated 08.09.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2700/eng@2024-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.