Kaguthi & 11 others v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & another (Petition 84 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 798 (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 Motion dated 22 October 2024 seeking review of the judgment of 27 October 2022 is competent notwithstanding the pending appeal and the Court of Appeal stay order
- 2.Whether leave should be granted for the firm of M.M. Gitonga Advocates LLP to come on record for the 1st Petitioner
Key legal issues
#Competence of a review motion where the decree is under appeal and execution is stayed
The review Motion lacks merit; the right of review is curtailed by section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act where a decree has been appealed and an appeal is pending
The Court noted the 1st Petitioner was part of an earlier review motion determined in 2023, is a respondent in the pending Civil Appeal No. E298 of 2023, and was aware of the appeal when filing. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act curtails review of a decree under appeal. The Motion was therefore without merit save for the change of advocates.
Change of advocates after judgment
Leave was granted for M.M. Gitonga Advocates LLP to come on record for the 1st Petitioner
A party may choose an advocate of choice during litigation, but after judgment leave of the Court is required. The Court held the Court of Appeal stay order did not limit the 1st Petitioner's right to choose an advocate at this stage, and allowed the firm on record.
Legal principles established
#- The right to bring a review application is curtailed where the decree has been appealed and the appeal is pending
- After judgment has been delivered, leave of the Court is required for an advocate to come on record
- A Court of Appeal stay of execution order does not limit a party's right to choose an advocate to represent them
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of M.M. Gitonga Advocates LLP allowed to come on record for the 1st Petitioner in the Petition file
- 2.The Motion dated 22 October 2024 otherwise dismissed for lack of merit
- 3.The 1st Petitioner condemned to pay the Respondents' costs for failing to file submissions within the agreed timelines
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and rules of the Court permitting review of judgments
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment of 27 October 2022 to include the 1st Petitioner in the underpayment award and clarify gratuity
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act curtails the right to bring a review application from a decree which has been appealed, and an appeal is pending
Costs
The 1st Petitioner is condemned to pay the Respondents' costs for filing submissions out of the agreed timelines.
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 sum total of the above determinations is that the Motion dated 22 October 2024 lacks merit save for an order allowing the firm of M.M. Gitonga Advocates LLP to come on record for the 1st Petitioner in this Petition file.
The 1st Petitioner did not file submissions within agreed timelines and he is condemned to pay the Respondents’ costs.
section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act curtails the right to bring a review application from a decree which has been appealed.
This Court does not understand the stay order granted by the Court of Appeal as limiting the 1st Petitioner’s right to choose an advocate to represent him at this stage of the proceedings, despite this Court having determined or declared the rights of the parties.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment quotes the Court of Appeal stay order with the dates of the judgment and ruling transposed relative to earlier recitals in the same judgment
The preliminary objection refers to Civil Appeal No. E 096 of 2023 while the judgment elsewhere refers to Civil Appeal No. E298 of 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaguthi & 11 others v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & another (Petition 84 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 798 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC No. 84 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/798/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.