[2021] KEELRC 982 (KLR)
The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicant did not meet the threshold for review as set out under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules. There was no discovery of new and important evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason to warrant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 982 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Boniface Muhatia; Respondent: UBA Kenya Bank Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 207 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Recomputation of Award
- 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
Boniface Muhatia
Applicant
UBA Kenya Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant meet the threshold for review under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules.
- 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason to warrant review of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicant did not meet the threshold for review as set out under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules. There was no discovery of new and important evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason to warrant review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 207 OF 2016
BONIFACE MUHATIA......................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
UBA KENYA BANK LIMITED.....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 5th May 2021 in which the Claimant seeks to review the judgment to recompute the sums awarded as he relied on a figure that the Court did not apply. In Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court it is provided as follows:
33(1) A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, may within reasonable time, apply for a review of the judgment or ruling—
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;
b. on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
c. if the judgment or ruling requires clarification; or
d. for any other sufficient reason.
2. An application for review of a decree or order of the Court under subparagraphs (b), (c) or (d), shall be made to the judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed or to any other judge if that judge is not attached to the Court station.
3. A party seeking review of a decree or order of the Court shall apply to the Court by way of notice of motion supported by an affidavit and shall file a copy of the Judgment or decree or Ruling or order to be reviewed.
4. The Court shall, upon hearing an application for review, deliver a ruling allowing or dismissing the application.
5. Where an application for review is granted, the Court may review its decision to conform to the findings of the review or quash its decision and order that the suit be heard again.
6. An order made for a review of a decree or order shall not be subject to further review. (emphasis supplied)
2. The grounds set out in the motion do not warrant a review as sought in this matter. Review application is therefore dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
NZIOKI WA MAKAU
JUDGE