[2018] KEELRC 592 (KLR)
The court held that the application for review was not tenable because a valid judgment had already been entered based on the consent, and the judgment itself was not the subject of the review. Furthermore, the grounds advanced for review did not fall within any of the categories enumerated under Rule 33 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 592 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Erastus Gitonga Burini; Respondent: Kenya Nut Company Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 95 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Consent Orders, Procedure Rules, Grounds for 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
Erastus Gitonga Burini
Claimant
Kenya Nut Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review of the consent judgment is tenable after judgment has been entered.
- 2 Whether the grounds advanced for review fall within the permissible categories under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for review was not tenable because a valid judgment had already been entered based on the consent, and the judgment itself was not the subject of the review. Furthermore, the grounds advanced for review did not fall within any of the categories enumerated under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. As such, the application was dismissed as being overtaken by events and lacking in merit under the applicable procedural rules.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
SUIT NO. 95 OF 2013
ERASTUS GITONGA BURINI.....................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA NUT COMPANY LIMITED.....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Respondent/Applicant seeks to review the consent of parties entered into in the suit. The consent was entered into on 3rd October 2017 and a judgment of the court given in November 2017. In matters review, the provisions of Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 apply. The rule provides 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.
2. The motion before me is one made after the judgment of the court in relation to a consent entered into prior to the decision. It is therefore overtaken by events as there is a valid judgment on the court file which decision is not subject of the review being sought. In any event, the review does not fit into any of the categories enumerated above. The motion is accordingly dismissed and as the motion was undefended I will make no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 19th day of November 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE