[2015] KEELRC 499 (KLR)
The court found that the application did not meet the threshold for review as set out in Rule 32 of the Court's Rules. The grounds advanced by the applicant were essentially grievances with the judgment, which are properly grounds for appeal, not review. The application failed to demonstrate discovery of new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 499 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Benjamin Mukuvi Muoki; Applicant: Jay Scrap Dealers
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 806 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Grounds for Review, Unfair Dismissal, Terminal Dues, Costs of Suit
- 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
Benjamin Mukuvi Muoki
Respondent
Jay Scrap Dealers
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application discloses valid grounds for review under Rule 32 of the Court's Rules.
- 2 Whether the grounds raised constitute grounds for review or appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought, including setting aside the judgment and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application did not meet the threshold for review as set out in Rule 32 of the Court's Rules. The grounds advanced by the applicant were essentially grievances with the judgment, which are properly grounds for appeal, not review. The application failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, breach of law, or any other sufficient reason to warrant review. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 806 OF 2013
BENJAMIN MUKUVI MUOKI………………CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JAY SCRAP DEALERS………………………………………..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The motion dated 19th January, 2015 by the respondent seeks review of this Court’s Judgment delivered on 25th November, 2014. The application is brought on the grounds that:-
(a) The claimant/respondent was unable to prove all the allegations as brought against the applicant of unfair dismissal and non-payment of terminal dues.
(b) The applicant did not terminate the services of the claimant as found by the Court and so the latter is not entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
(c) The applicant was able to prove to the Court that the claimant fled after the theft incidence and in such circumstances an environment for the demand and payment of terminal dues was absent.
(d) That being the case then the applicant feels it is unfair for him to bear the costs of this suit and in the alternative is of the opinion that the claimant ought to meet the costs of this suit.
(e) That if the claimant/respondent is allowed to execute the applicant herein will suffer irreparable loss and damage.
2. The respondent opposed the application through grounds of objection filed on 27th February stating that the application was incompetent and further that it disclosed no single ground or ingredient for review of the Courts Judgment.
3. Rule 32 of the Court’s Rules provides as follows concerning review:-
(a) If there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by that person at the time when the decree was passed or the order made; or
(b) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(c) On account of the award, judgment or ruling being in breach of any written law; or
(d) If the award, judgment or ruling requires clarification; or
(e) for any other sufficient reasons.
4. I have reviewed the present application vis-à-vis the foregoing provisions of the Court’s Rules and I am not persuaded that it meets the parameters for review as contemplated by the Rules of the Court. The grounds of complaint set out in the body of application as well as supporting affidavit seem to me to be grounds upon which the respondent is aggrieved by the Judgment of the Court. These are in essence grounds of appeal and not review. In circumstances the Court is not persuaded that the orders sought are merited and hereby dismisses the application with costs.
5. It is ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 2nd day of October 2015
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 2nd day of October 2015
In the presence of:-
…………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge