Kale v Teachers Service Commission & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 703 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a teacher's late judicial review application against the Teachers Service Commission because no law allowed extending the deadline, while confirming an ordinary suit remains open.
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 extend time for filing judicial review orders of certiorari and mandamus where no provision of law permitting extension of time is cited
- 2.Whether the applicant should pursue the withheld half-pay claim in an ordinary suit
- 3.Whether the ambiguity in the scope and particulars of the proposed reliefs bars granting leave
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to extend time for judicial review
The application was dismissed because the applicant did not cite any provision permitting extension of time, and the statutory six-month period for certiorari had lapsed
The applicant's own prayer for extension of time conceded that time had lapsed for the judicial review orders sought. Extension of time is not an inherent entitlement; the applicant was required to identify a statutory provision empowering the court to extend time. Having failed to do so, the court found the application incurably misconceived and held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension.
Ambiguity in the proposed reliefs
The ambiguity in the scope and particulars of the proposed certiorari and mandamus reliefs operated as a bar to granting leave
The court observed that the prayers did not spell out the scope and particulars of the proposed judicial review reliefs. Such ambiguity could not be cured at the leave stage and operated as a bar to granting the application. The court declined to delve into the merits of whether mandamus or prohibition would issue, since leave had already been found unmerited.
Alternative remedy for the withheld half-pay claim
The predominant claim for payment of withheld half pay during interdiction could be pursued in an ordinary suit
Although the parties were in a public service contract with constitutional and statutory underpinning, nothing prevented the applicant from filing an ordinary suit to claim the alleged withheld monies, as the respondents had submitted. This observation was obiter, as the application failed on jurisdiction and the court was precluded from examining the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot extend time for filing judicial review proceedings where the applicant cites no provision of law empowering the court to extend time
- An employee aggrieved by dismissal and withholding of half pay during interdiction may pursue the claim in an ordinary suit
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time by the chamber summons dated 26.07.2024 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to forthwith return the case file to Machakos Sub-registry as closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 rules 1(1), 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 27 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; sections 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Relief refused
#Leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari and mandamus out of time
No provision of law permitting extension of time was cited; time had lapsed; the application was misconceived and ambiguous
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.
the Court finds that the application was incurably misconceived and time having lapsed as urged for both parties, the Court has not been shown to enjoy jurisdiction to extent time
Such ambiguity will operate as bar to granting the application
In conclusion the application for extension of time by the chamber summons dated 26.07.2024 is hereby dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs of the proceedings, and, the Deputy Registrar to forthwith return the case file to Machakos Sub-registry as closed.
Issues in the judgment
#Recurrent typographical error: 'extent time' instead of 'extend time'
Typographical error 'CXourt Act' in the citation of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kale v Teachers Service Commission & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 703 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 26.07.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/703/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.