[2020] KEELRC 562 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 562 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review as set out in Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The applicant did not present any new or important matter that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the earlier...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 562 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Grace Akinyi Ahawo; Respondent: Kenya Airports Authority
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 985 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review or Set Aside Previous Order on Decretal Sum
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Decretal Sum Computation, Garnishee Proceedings
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Court Orders Decretal Sum Computation Garnishee Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Akinyi Ahawo

Applicant

Kenya Airports Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review or Set Aside Previous Order on Decretal Sum

  1. 1 Whether the applicant met the threshold for review or setting aside the court's previous order on the decretal sum.
  2. 2 Whether the introduction of interest on the decretal sum constitutes a new matter warranting review.
  3. 3 Whether the application is res judicata due to previous similar applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review as set out in Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The applicant did not present any new or important matter that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the earlier applications. The attempt to introduce interest on the decretal sum was not considered a newly discovered matter. The court also noted that similar issues had been raised and determined in previous applications, making the current application res judicata. Any alleged mistake in the previous ruling should be addressed through appellate jurisdiction, not review. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The motion dated 27 February 2020 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.