[2015] KEELRC 558 (KLR)
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in its ruling of 27th May 2015. The court had considered the documents presented and made findings based on the evidence available, including the issue of shareholding transfer and the existence of a local bank account. The applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 558 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Anthony Ndung’u Gakuo; Respondent: Baker Hughes EHO Limited (Kenya Branch)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 440 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Court Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Error on Face of Record, Security for Costs, Appeal Vs Review
- 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
Anthony Ndung’u Gakuo
Claimant
Baker Hughes EHO Limited (Kenya Branch)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Court Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's ruling of 27th May 2015.
- 2 Whether the respondent/applicant is entitled to a review and setting aside of the orders requiring deposit of Kshs. 1 million.
- 3 Whether the application for review is a disguised appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in its ruling of 27th May 2015. The court had considered the documents presented and made findings based on the evidence available, including the issue of shareholding transfer and the existence of a local bank account. The applicant's attempt to introduce new documents or re-argue the same issues did not meet the threshold for review. The court held that the proper avenue for the applicant to challenge the ruling was by way of appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURTOF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 440 OF 2015
(Before Hon. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa on 20th August, 2015)
ANTHONY NDUNG’U GAKUO……………………………….…. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
BAKER HUGHES EHO LIMITED (KENYA BRANCH) ……..RESPONDENT
RULING
The application before court is the one dated 15/6/2015 filed by the Respondents herein where they seek orders in terms of prayers 3 and 4 as follows:
THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to review itsRuling of 27th May 2015 and set aside the orders made on27/5/2015.
That costs of this application be provided for.
This application is premised on the grounds that:
This Honourable Court delivered a ruling on 27th May 2015 and ordered that the Respondent/Applicant deposit a sum of Kshs.1 million in court within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
The Applicant is aggrieved by the ruling and orders of this Honourable Court.
No appeal has been preferred in respect of the ruling and orders of this Honourable Court.
The Ruling of this Honourable Court contains mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the record.
There are sufficient reasons for reviewing the ruling and orders of this Honourable Court.
The application has been brought without unreasonable delay.
It is in the interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought.
The Application is supported by the supporting affidavit of Chike Uchendu the Respondents County Operations Manager who depones that the apparent error on the record is that the court had in its ruling indicated that the application had transferred their shareholding to another company, which they have not denied. That also that the Applicant didn’t show they own other properties in Kenya or even a local bank account.
The Applicants depone that they had in paragraph 8 of their replying affidavit denied transferring their shareholding to another company and in paragraph 43 of annextures, they set out details of bank account and in paragraph 9 and 10 they annexed a list of properties in Kenya., In that regard, the Applicants aver that the ruling has an error on face of record hence the application for review.
The Claimant Respondent opposed this application. They filed the replying affidavit on 24/6/2015 being an affidavit on the Claimant Respondent herein who depone that there is no error on the record. The Respondent also depones that the issues raised in the application were canvassed in the application interpartes and deposed of and so the application is a disguised appeal against the ruling of this court.
The apparent error stated to be on record is the fact that the court decided that the Applicants have no bank account in Kenya and have transferred their shareholding to another company. This aspect was considered by this court in its ruling at page 5 and the court relied on documents presented to court at pages 80 to 90 of the application which was a story of proposed sale or take over. The finding of this court was that based on those documents the Applicants, had indeed transferred its shareholding to another company.
On issue of the Applicant not having any local bank company – this this court also made a finding that indeed there was no local bank account of the Applicant. In this application, the Applicants have now referred court to documents Annex CU 6 in their reply stating that, they own a local bank account. The document in question is titled Commercial Invoice No. 2011742.
I am unable to discern any evidence of a local bank account on the face of it and the Applicants have still not given details of any local bank account they own.
It is therefore the finding of this court that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and that the right form for the Applicants to canvas their grievance lies in appeal. I therefore dismiss this application with costs to the Claimant Respondents.
Read in open Court this 20th day of August, 2015
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Kihunjo holding brief for Nyaburu Applicant
No appearance for Respondents