[2015] KEELRC 551 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 551 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds required for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Procedure Rules 2010. There was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any breach of written law or other sufficient reason to warrant review. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 551 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Anna Awinja; Respondent: Rashid Ali; Respondent: Zahra Rashid
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 867 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Overtime Pay, Wrongful Termination, Certificate of Service
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Overtime Pay Wrongful Termination Certificate of Service

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Awinja

Applicant

Rashid Ali

Respondent

Zahra Rashid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the court's judgment under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Procedure Rules 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in failing to award overtime pay, compensation for wrongful termination, and a certificate of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds required for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Procedure Rules 2010. There was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any breach of written law or other sufficient reason to warrant review. The court emphasized that it cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment and that the applicant's remedy lies in an appeal, not a review. Consequently, the application for review was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.