[2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR)

The court found that it could not award interest on sums that had not been ascertained at the time of the original judgment. The parties only agreed on the sums owing on March 30, 2020, after the judgment. The consent judgment referenced by the claimants pertained specifically to a different sum in a different case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Oginga Igonyi & 66 others; Respondent: Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 286 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review/vary/set Aside Part of Prior Ruling
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs
Judges
S Radido
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Award of Interest, Costs of Suit, Consent Judgment, Error Apparent on Record
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Award of Interest Costs of Suit Consent Judgment Error Apparent on Record

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

Parties

Alfred Oginga Igonyi & 66 others

Applicant

Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review/vary/set Aside Part of Prior Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the court should review, vary, or set aside its prior ruling to award interest and costs to the claimants as per the consent judgment.
  2. 2 Whether failure to award interest and costs constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application or was functus officio.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it could not award interest on sums that had not been ascertained at the time of the original judgment. The parties only agreed on the sums owing on March 30, 2020, after the judgment. The consent judgment referenced by the claimants pertained specifically to a different sum in a different case and could not be extended to the present claim. Furthermore, the failure to award interest and costs was not an error apparent on the face of the record but a matter for appeal. The court also noted that the application for review was filed only after execution had commenced, suggesting it was an afterthought. Consequently, the court held that there was no merit in the...

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated June 29, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.