[2017] KEELRC 1121 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1121 (KLR)

The court held that the claimant's application for review did not meet the threshold set by the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules. The claimant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of any new and important matter that could not have been discovered with due...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1121 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Shivachi Mutoka; Respondent: Yala Town Council
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 266 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DI Wasike
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Timeliness of Application
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Error on Face of Record Timeliness of Application

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Shivachi Mutoka

Applicant

Yala Town Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether the application for review meets the criteria set under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has demonstrated an error on the face of the record or discovery of new material facts.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review is time-barred due to delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant's application for review did not meet the threshold set by the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules. The claimant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of any new and important matter that could not have been discovered with due diligence before judgment. The court further noted that the application was filed almost three years after the judgment, rendering it inordinately late. The court emphasized that the claimant's arguments amounted to an attack on the merits of the judgment, which should be pursued through an appeal rather than a review. Consequently, the application was found to be without merit...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review dated 6th April, 2016 is dismissed with costs.