Maridadi Flowers Limited v Makunya (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E028 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2859 (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 appeal before this Honourable Court is merited
- 2.Whether the trial magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's employment claim filed on 12th June 2018, before Gazette Notice No. 6024 was published on 22nd June 2018
- 3.Whether the appeal, filed long out of time with leave granted by the subordinate court, is procedurally sound
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the magistrate's court over the employment claim filed before publication of Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22nd June 2018
Although the Gazette Notice became effective only upon publication on 22nd June 2018, after the suit was filed, section 29(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act does not mean that magistrates lacked jurisdiction to deal with employment and labour relations cases; the Chief Justice's appointment of magistrates was not mandatory
The court accepted the Appellant's argument that the Gazette Notice took effect on publication, ten days after filing. However, it held that section 29(3) empowering the Chief Justice to appoint magistrates was enabling, not mandatory, so the absence of gazettement did not strip magistrates of jurisdiction over employment disputes. Striking out a seven-year-old suit on this technicality would be more unjust than the evil the appellant sought to cure, and Article 159(b) requires that justice not be delayed.
Whether the appeal, filed long out of time, was procedurally merited
The appeal was filed way out of time; the delay from the ruling of 28th January 2022 to filing in December 2023 was inexcusable and contrary to Article 159(b) of the Constitution
Leave to file out of time had been granted by the Senior Principal Magistrate on 7th July 2022, but even with that leave the memorandum filed in December 2023 was far too late with no explanation. Under section 79(a) of the Civil Procedure Act the normal period is 30 days, and Article 159(b) requires that justice shall not be delayed. This procedural defect, together with the lack of merit, justified dismissal.
Whether striking out the suit after seven years would serve the interests of justice
Striking out the suit after seven years merely because the Gazette Notice listing magistrates had not been published would be more unjust than what the appellant sought to cure
The claimant filed his claim on time and the case had spent over seven years in the court corridors through no fault of his. The court invoked the constitutional principle that justice shall not be delayed and the duty to eschew undue technicalities, holding that substantive justice required the suit to proceed before a magistrate with the requisite jurisdiction rather than be defeated on a technicality.
Legal principles established
#- A Gazette Notice only becomes legally effective upon its formal publication, not on the date it is signed or issued
- A Gazette Notice is not itself a decision but a means of conveying information; legal consequences arise once it is published
- A first appellate court must re-examine, reassess and reanalyse the evidence on record before upholding or overturning the trial court's findings
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal against the Ruling of the Senior Principal Magistrate is dismissed
- 2.The case be presented to the Deputy Registrar within 30 days to allocate it before a Magistrate with requisite jurisdiction so that it be heard and determined without any further delay
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Senior Principal Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act over a ruling of a Senior Principal Magistrate; jurisdiction of magistrates over employment disputes under section 29(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act and Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22nd June 2018
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the Ruling of Honourable Karanja SPM dated 28th January 2022
The court found the appeal inexcusably out of time and without merit, holding that striking out the suit after 7 years on the ground that the Gazette Notice had not been published would be more unjust
Costs
Costs of this application to be in the cause.
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 holds by the forgoing reasons the appeal against the Ruling of Senior Principal Magistrate lacks merits and so is dismissed.
The court orders the case be presented to the Deputy Registrar within 30 days to allocate before a Magistrate with requisite jurisdiction so that the case be heard and determined without any further delay.
It is trite law that a Gazette Notice only becomes legally efiective upon its formal publication, not on the date it is signed or issued.
The court holds that striking out this suit after 7 years in court merely because the Gazette Notice had not been published to list the level of the Magistrates who would hear employment cases would be more unjust than what the appellant seeks to cure.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting filing dates for the suit: paragraph 17 states the suit was filed on 12th June 2018, while paragraph 23 states it was filed on 30th May 2018
Conflicting dates for filing of the Memorandum of Appeal: the memorandum is dated 15th November 2022, the Respondent says the appeal was filed 306 days after the ruling, and paragraph 20 states it was filed on 6th December 2023
The judgment refers to both section 79G and section 79(a) of the Civil Procedure Act as governing the 30-day appeal period
Internal tension: the court accepts the Gazette Notice had no retrospective effect and that at filing 'this Honourable Court did not possess the requisite jurisdiction', yet declines to find the proceedings a nullity and instead remits the suit for allocation before a magistrate with jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maridadi Flowers Limited v Makunya (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E028 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2859/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.