[2019] KEELRC 354 (KLR)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court declined jurisdiction to rehear the matter, holding that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment on 16th July, 2015. The court found that the only issue raised was a technical objection to the composition of the original bench, which did not affect the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Kenya Medical Research Institute; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Industrial Court of Kenya (as then Constituted under Section 12 of the Labour Institution Act Repeated); Interested Party: Agnes Muthoni & 34 Others; Interested Party: Union of National Research and Allied Institutes Staff of Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 31 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment on Jurisdictional Objection After Supreme Court Decision
- Outcome
- Jurisdiction declined; court functus officio; no rehearing ordered.
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha, DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Bench Composition, Functus Officio, Jurisdiction of Elrc, Stay of Execution, Appeal Process
- 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
Kenya Medical Research Institute
Petitioner
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Industrial Court of Kenya (as then Constituted under Section 12 of the Labour Institution Act Repeated)
Respondent
Agnes Muthoni & 34 Others
Interested Party
Union of National Research and Allied Institutes Staff of Kenya
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment on Jurisdictional Objection After Supreme Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court can reconstitute a bench and rehear a matter after the Supreme Court's decision in Karisa Chengo regarding mixed bench composition.
- 2 Whether the court is functus officio after delivering its judgment on 16th July, 2015.
- 3 Whether the technical objection on bench composition affects the jurisprudential soundness of the earlier judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment and Labour Relations Court declined jurisdiction to rehear the matter, holding that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment on 16th July, 2015. The court found that the only issue raised was a technical objection to the composition of the original bench, which did not affect the substantive legal reasoning or soundness of the judgment. The court agreed with the Chief Justice that rehearing would be an uneconomical use of judicial time, especially since the matter was already pending on appeal and no jurisprudential error had been identified. The court therefore refused to reconstitute a new bench or revisit the merits of the case, leaving any further challenge...
Court Disposition
Jurisdiction declined; court functus officio; no rehearing ordered.
Orders
- The court declines jurisdiction to rehear the matter.
- The judgment delivered on 16th July, 2015 stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO 31 OF 2013
KENYA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE...................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL............................................1ST RESPONDENT
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA (as then Constituted under
Section 12 of the Labour Institution Act Repeated)..........................2nd RESPONDENT
AGNES MUTHONI & 34 OTHERS.............................1ST INTERESTED PARTIES
UNION OF NATIONAL RESEARCH AND ALLIED
INSTITUTESSTAFF OF KENYA................................2ND INTERESTED PARTIES
J U D G E M E N T
1. The writing of this judgement was prompted by the decision of the Supreme Court in Petition No 5 of 2015 R V Karisa Chengo and 2 Others.In that petition the Supreme Court held that the composition of the bench that heard the 1st appeal to the High Court was unconstitutional because it included Hon. Justice Oscar Angote , a Judge of Environment and Land Court.
2. In this matter before me the Bench comprising of Honourable Justices Nderi Nduma (ELRC- Presiding), Mumbi Ngugi and George Odunga heard and decided this appeal on merits. The learned Judges had earlier overruled on objection on the composition of the Bench stating that the Constitution only created different Courts but not different cadre of Judges. The learned Judges, then proceeded to hear and determine the appeal on merit and delivered their judgement on 16th day of July,2015.
3. Save for the objection on the composition of the Bench, when I asked Counsel for the parties, when they appeared before me, especially Counsel for the appellant Mr. Wetangula if save for the mixed composition of the Bench they had any issue with jurisprudential or judicial rendition of the judgement by the learned judges his answer was that he did not. But even if he did, in my opinion that would be a matter for appeal to the Court of Appeal.
4. I have myself gone through the judgement and find the same legally sound and have nothing useful to add. I would adopt it as the judgement of the Court to resolve what in my view was a technical objection in Karisa Chengo’s case which did not go to the root of the jurisprudential soundness of the judgement in that case.
5. However, by a letter dated, 9th February, 2018 from the Honourable. The Chief Justice addressed to the Principal Judge ELRC wherein the Principal Judge sought reconstitution of the Bench following the Karisa Chengo judgement, the learned CJ observed that the Petition herein was heard and judgement delivered on 16th July,2015 and that the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the judgement and filed a Notice of Appeal.
6. Further the Petitioner’s application for stay of execution pending appeal was granted on 9th September,2016 on condition that the Petition deposits some money in court or in a joint interest earning account within 30 days.
7. In the Hon. Chief Justice’s view, it was not clear to him what purpose the proposed bench would serve in view of the fact that the matter was pending on appeal and that the ELRC may be functus officio.
8. The Court could not agree more with the sentiments of the learned Chief Justice. It would not be an economical use of judicial time for this Court to sit and hear de novo a matter which was heard by very competent judges of superior Court and a well-reasoned determination given which has not been faulted in terms of jurisprudence and legal reasoning but a mere technical issue of a mixed bench. The judges discharged their duty ably and only the Court of Appeal can overturn their decision.
9. I therefore decline jurisdiction to determine this matter a fresh on grounds that this Court became functus officio when it rendered its judgement on 16th July, 2015.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 18th day of October, 2019
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
Delivered this 18th day of October, 2019
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
In the presence of:-
...................................................for the Claimant and
......................................................for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge