[2018] KEELRC 2518 (KLR)
The court held that it was proper to defer delivery of judgment in the petition pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision on a similar legal question regarding the constitutionality of denying terminal benefits to dismissed employees. The court reasoned that legal certainty and the need for consistent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jomo Kamao Moya; Respondent: The Service Commander, Kenya Army; Respondent: The Defence Council; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 24 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Review/vary Order of Judgment Deferment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Pension Rights, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review, Procedural Timelines
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jomo Kamao Moya
Applicant
The Service Commander, Kenya Army
Respondent
The Defence Council
Respondent
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Review/vary Order of Judgment Deferment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review, vary, set aside, vacate, discharge or rescind its earlier order deferring delivery of judgment.
- 2 Whether the petitioner was denied a right to be heard before the deferment order was made.
- 3 Whether procedural timelines override the need for legal certainty and constitutional validity in the context of pending appeals on similar legal questions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was proper to defer delivery of judgment in the petition pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision on a similar legal question regarding the constitutionality of denying terminal benefits to dismissed employees. The court reasoned that legal certainty and the need for consistent constitutional interpretation across concurrent courts outweigh procedural requirements for timely delivery of judgments. The court further found that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the deferment, as clear reasons were given and the court acted within its authority to manage its docket. The application to review or set aside the deferment order was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application filed on 14 November 2017 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The file is to be transmitted back to Nakuru registry to await determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal in Nyeri.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
PETITION NO. 24 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 41, 47, 48, 50, 165, 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 27, 28 AND 41(1)(2)(A) AND (B), 43, 47 AND 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE KENYA DEFENCE FORCES ACT, NO. 25 OF 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES) – (OFFICERS AND SERVICEMEN) REGULATIONS, 1980.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE INDUSTRIAL COURT ACT, NO. 20 OF 2011
BETWEEN
JOMO KAMAO MOYA PETITIONER
AND
THE SERVICE COMMANDER, KENYA ARMY 1ST RESPONDENT
THE DEFENCE COUNCIL 2ND RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY General 3RD RESPONDENT
RULING NO. 2
1. In a ruling delivered on 2 October 2017, the Court deferred delivery of judgment in this Petition in order to await delivery of a judgment by the Court of Appeal in an appeal pending before it in which the decision of this Court sitting in Nyeri declaring that it is unconstitutional/unfair labour practice to deprive a dismissed employee of pension benefits.
2. The ruling of deferment of judgment aggrieved the Petitioner and on 14 November 2017 he moved Court seeking
1. …
2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to review and vary, set aside, vacate, discharge and or rescind its ruling and orders issued in this matter on 2nd October, 2017.
3. ….
3. The Court directed the application to be served upon the Respondents and arguments were taken on 30 November 2017 (the Respondents did not respond to the application and did not attend Court when oral arguments were taken).
4. In addition to the oral arguments, the Petitioner filed written submissions on 29 November 2017.
5. The Court has considered the material placed before it and come to the conclusion that the application ought to be dismissed because of the following reasons.
6. First, one of the primary remedies sought by the Petitioner herein was a declaration that his dismissal without terminal benefits was unconstitutional, and an order for payment of the benefits.
7. A Court of concurrent jurisdiction sitting in Nyeri declared as unconstitutional, an unfair labour practise and deprivation of property the denial of terminal benefits to a dismissed employee.
8. An appeal on the legal question is still pending before the Court of Appeal.
9. As this Court noted in the ruling of 2 October 2017, the determination by the Court of Appeal of that question will not only implicate this Petition but nearly all unfair termination/dismissal cases in this country.
10. Secondly, legal certainty and constitutional litigation practice dictate that where a law has been declared unconstitutional, a concurrent Court should not undeclare the unconstitutionality, especially where an appeal to a higher Court is pending.
11. Three, legal certainty and constitutional validity of a statutory or contractual provision should triumph over procedural timelines/technicalities on when a decision ought to be delivered after close of hearing. The contention that the Court has breached Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules therefore ought not to be decisive in this type of case.
12. Four, the contention by the Petitioner that he should have been heard before the direction/order deferring judgment was rendered is misplaced as clear reasons were given for the decision, and further the Court has the authority under the Rules to manage its docket.
13. The application filed in Court on 14 November 2017 is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. This file to be transmitted back to Nakuru registry to await determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal in Nyeri.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 19th day of January 2018.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Petitioner Ms. Ogange instructed by Konosi & Co. Advocates
For Respondents Hon. Attorney General
Court Assistant Nixon