[2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had pleaded and relied on the salary figure of Ksh.548,541 in his original pleadings and evidence, and the judgment adopted this figure. The documents now relied upon by the claimant, such as KRA returns and bank statements, related to periods before the suit was filed and were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Allan Mwangi Muturi; Respondent: Kenya Airports Authority
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 381 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Salary Computation, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Salary Computation Error on Face of Record

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Mwangi Muturi

Claimant

Kenya Airports Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the court should allow a review of the judgment to correct the salary amount from Ksh.548,541 to Ksh.615,968 per month.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has met the threshold for review under Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had pleaded and relied on the salary figure of Ksh.548,541 in his original pleadings and evidence, and the judgment adopted this figure. The documents now relied upon by the claimant, such as KRA returns and bank statements, related to periods before the suit was filed and were available to him at the time of trial. Therefore, there was no discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record. Allowing the application would amount to re-opening the case and would be prejudicial to the respondent. The threshold for review under Rule 33(1) was not met, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 25th August, 2020 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear own costs.