[2024] KECA 843 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the applicants, having demonstrated advanced age and health complications, were deserving of a priority hearing for their pending appeal. The court recognized that administrative requests for a hearing date had not been addressed and that the applicants faced prejudice due to their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 843 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenyatta University; Respondent: Humprey Nyaga Thomas; Respondent: Charles Karigi Muiruri; Respondent: Jackson Makokha; Respondent: Michael Ndungu; Respondent: Joseph Muturi Mwangi; Respondent: Lawrence FN Gathenya; Respondent: Margaret Wanjiru; Respondent: Jacob Thumi; Respondent: Wakarindi Gathariki; Respondent: George Ndung’u; Respondent: Michael Kaara; Respondent: Margaret Ngunji; Respondent: Francis Libechi; Respondent: S.Indimuli A. Geoffrey; Respondent: Stephen M Numi; Respondent: Peter Irungu; Respondent: Richard Iburu; Respondent: Amos Mathenge; Respondent: Esther Njoki Mburu; Respondent: James Karanja Muturi; Respondent: Peter Ochembe; Respondent: Vincent Ngungi Chege; Respondent: Samuel W. Ngungi; Respondent: Simon M. Kigotho; Respondent: Karih Wambugu; Respondent: Agnes Kabura Ndung’u
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E494 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Motion to Fast Track Appeal
- Outcome
- motion allowed
- Judges
- S ole Kantai, JM Mativo, GWN Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Expedited Hearing, Appeal Management, Reinstatement of Employees, Priority Allocation
- 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
Kenyatta University
Applicant
Humprey Nyaga Thomas
Respondent
Charles Karigi Muiruri
Respondent
Jackson Makokha
Respondent
Michael Ndungu
Respondent
Joseph Muturi Mwangi
Respondent
Lawrence FN Gathenya
Respondent
Margaret Wanjiru
Respondent
Jacob Thumi
Respondent
Wakarindi Gathariki
Respondent
George Ndung’u
Respondent
Michael Kaara
Respondent
Margaret Ngunji
Respondent
Francis Libechi
Respondent
S.Indimuli A. Geoffrey
Respondent
Stephen M Numi
Respondent
Peter Irungu
Respondent
Richard Iburu
Respondent
Amos Mathenge
Respondent
Esther Njoki Mburu
Respondent
James Karanja Muturi
Respondent
Peter Ochembe
Respondent
Vincent Ngungi Chege
Respondent
Samuel W. Ngungi
Respondent
Simon M. Kigotho
Respondent
Karih Wambugu
Respondent
Agnes Kabura Ndung’u
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Motion to Fast Track Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pending appeal should be fast-tracked and allocated a hearing date on a priority basis due to the applicants' advanced age and health conditions.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to administratively prioritize the hearing of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the applicants, having demonstrated advanced age and health complications, were deserving of a priority hearing for their pending appeal. The court recognized that administrative requests for a hearing date had not been addressed and that the applicants faced prejudice due to their circumstances, including lack of income and inability to secure alternative employment. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction and in the interests of justice, the court allowed the motion, directing that the appeal file be placed before the President of the Court of Appeal for allocation of a hearing date on a priority basis. Costs of the motion were ordered to be in the appeal.
Court Disposition
motion allowed
Orders
- The appeal file shall be placed before the President, Court of Appeal, to allocate a hearing date on the basis of priority.
- Costs of the motion will be in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
74 paragraphs
Kenyatta University v Thomas & 25 others (Civil Application E494 of 2022) [2024] KECA 843 (KLR) (12 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 843 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Application E494 of 2022
S ole Kantai, JM Mativo & GWN Macharia, JJA
July 12, 2024
Between
Kenyatta University
Applicant
and
Humprey Nyaga Thomas
1st Respondent
Charles Karigi Muiruri
2nd Respondent
Jackson Makokha
3rd Respondent
Michael Ndungu
4th Respondent
Joseph Muturi Mwangi
5th Respondent
Lawrence FN Gathenya
6th Respondent
Margaret Wanjiru
7th Respondent
Jacob Thumi
8th Respondent
Wakarindi Gathariki
9th Respondent
George Ndung’u
10th Respondent
Michael Kaara
11th Respondent
Margaret Ngunji
12th Respondent
Francis Libechi
13th Respondent
S.Indimuli A. Geoffrey
14th Respondent
Stephen M Numi
15th Respondent
Peter Irungu
16th Respondent
Richard Iburu
17th Respondent
Amos Mathenge
18th Respondent
Esther Njoki Mburu
19th Respondent
James Karanja Muturi
20th Respondent
Peter Ochembe
21st Respondent
Vincent Ngungi Chege
22nd Respondent
Samuel W. Ngungi
23rd Respondent
Simon M. Kigotho
24th Respondent
Karih Wambugu
25th Respondent
Agnes Kabura Ndung’u
26th Respondent
(Being appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mbaru, J.) made on 10th December, 2021 in Milimani ELRC Constitution Petition Number 93 of 2018 Petition 93 of 2018 )
Ruling
1. The motion before us is unusual because what we are asked to do is something which is usually dealt with administratively and does not get to a full bench of the court.
2. The 26-applicants led by Francis Libechi (13th applicant) who has sworn an affidavit to support the motion were successful in a suit they had filed against their employer, Kenyatta University (the appellant). They were each awarded Kshs.280,380 and the appellant was ordered to reinstate them to employment. The appellant appealed and that appeal is at our registry awaiting hearing and determination. They have now approached us by motion on notice said to be brought under Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of law asking in the main that the said appeal be fast tracked for hearing. In grounds in support of the motion and in the said affidavit they say among other things that they were successful in their suit but that the appellant appealed the judgment on 22nd July, 2022 but that appeal is yet to be allocated a hearing date; that the appeal should be heard on the basis of priority.
3. Why this should be done, it is deposed in the affidavit, is because the applicants who are of advanced years are suffering from multiple health complications which are impacting their continued active participation in the court process; that the applicants have no source of income due to the loss of their jobs and they are unable to find other jobs, their lawyers wrote a letter to court asking for an urgent hearing date for their appeal but there was no response.
4. There are various medical records attached to the application to support what they are saying in the affidavit. When the application came up for hearing before us on 29th April, 2024 learned counsel Mr. Thuita appeared for the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th and 26th applicants while learned counsel Miss Guserwa appeared for the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 21st and 24th applicants. Learned counsel Mr. Thuo appeared for the respondent (appellant).
5. Mr. Thuita submitted that letters to court praying for an urgent hearing date had not been responded to; a hearing date should be allocated on priority, a position that was supported by Miss Guserwa. Mr. Thuo for the appellant had not filed any document and as would be expected, had no objection to the application.
6. We have considered the motion and submissions made.
7. A record of appeal was filed challenging judgment of the High Court and is awaiting hearing but no hearing date has been allocated. We are told that the applicants are of advanced age and it has been demonstrated that some of them are in poor health requiring medical attention. The applicants are deserving of a hearing date on the basis of priority for the appeal that is pending before this Court.
8. We allow the motion. Let the appeal file be placed before the President, Court of Appeal, to allocate a hearing date on the basis of priority. Costs of the motion will be in the appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. S. ole KANTAI…………...………………..JUDGE OF APPEALJ. MATIVO……………..………...……JUDGE OF APPEALG. W. NGENYE - MACHARIA………………...……….….JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR