Dancan Ayiecha Ogeto v East Africa Cans & Closures Limited (Miscellaneous Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 918 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court reviewed its own earlier ruling because it decided facts before settling whether it even had jurisdiction over a DOSHS work injury award.
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 prayer for review of this Court's Ruling delivered on 31st July, 2024 is deserved
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court's Ruling of 31st July 2024 should be reviewed under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
The review was granted: the earlier ruling failed to determine the jurisdiction question raised in the Preliminary Objection and instead determined factual matters, amounting to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and a sufficient reason for review under Rule 74(1)(d).
The Respondent's Preliminary Objection had raised the single issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to enforce DOSHS decisions. The prior ruling skipped that pure question of law and went into questions of fact (the completeness and stamping of the DOSH forms) which could only be reached after jurisdiction was settled. Citing Munene v King'ara, the court held jurisdiction must be determined first; failing to do so was an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and quashing of the ruling.
Whether the review application was filed within reasonable time
Yes - the application filed approximately 2½ months after the ruling was within a reasonable time, with no unreasonable delay.
The ruling sought to be reviewed was delivered on 31st July 2024 and the review application filed on 18th October 2024. The court found this approximately 2½ month interval reasonable under Rule 74, which requires an application 'within reasonable time'. No unreasonable delay was found.
Legal principles established
#- The question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law that must be determined at the outset before any other issue.
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long drawn process of reasoning.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court's Ruling delivered on 31st July, 2024 is reviewed and quashed
- 2.The Applicant shall compile a hard copy of his Notice of Motion dated 14th February, 2024, duly bound and paginated, including the affidavits, annextures and court receipts, and file and serve it within 7 days
- 3.The Respondent shall file and serve a response to the application dated 14th February, 2024 within 7 days of service, and place a hard copy on record
- 4.Directions on disposal of the application and/or any preliminary objection to be taken on 12th May, 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Orders 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Prayer 2 - an order directing the Backend Professionals working on the Judiciary e-filing system to prompt the Applicant's Advocates to pay further court fees on annextures DOA5(a-e)
The court allowed only Prayers 1 and 3 of the Notice of Motion; the e-filing prayer was not included in the final orders.
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Notice of Motion dated September 24, 2024.
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.
This Court's Ruling delivered on 31st July, 2024 is hereby reviewed, and is quashed.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Notice of Motion dated September 24, 2024.
In my view, matters of fact could only be determined once the issue of jurisdiction had been determined. The issue of jurisdiction remained and remains undetermined.
Failure by the Court to determine the issue of jurisdiction, which was a pure point of law raised by way of a Preliminary Objection, and proceeding to determine matters of fact which had not yet been placed before it for determination, was a mistake, and an error apparent on the face of the record which automatically must invoke and attract the Court's power of review.
The application was, in my view, filed within a reasonable time. There was no unreasonable delay in filing it.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number, cause number and parties' names are not stated anywhere in the judgment text; parties are referred to only as Applicant and Respondent.
The judgment refers to the Applicant's earlier application as dated 14th April, 2024 in one passage, but everywhere else it is dated 14th February, 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dancan Ayiecha Ogeto v East Africa Cans & Closures Limited (Miscellaneous Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 918 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/918/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.