[2016] KEELRC 1471 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's application, though styled as an interpretation, was in substance a further application for review of the award previously delivered. The court had already determined the applicant's dissatisfaction with the award in a prior review application in 2013. As such, the issues raised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1471 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Delfino Ntoruru; Respondent: Transport & Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Kenya Airports Authority
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 82 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review/interpretation of Award
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Award, Jurisdiction of Court, Res Judicata, Functus Officio
- 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
John Delfino Ntoruru
Applicant
Transport & Allied Workers Union
Respondent
Kenya Airports Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review/interpretation of Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a further application for review of its previous ruling.
- 2 Whether the application is res judicata due to prior determination of the same issues.
- 3 Whether the application, though styled as an interpretation, is in substance a review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's application, though styled as an interpretation, was in substance a further application for review of the award previously delivered. The court had already determined the applicant's dissatisfaction with the award in a prior review application in 2013. As such, the issues raised were res judicata, and the court was functus officio, lacking jurisdiction to entertain the application. The only available remedy for the applicant was to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 82 OF 2002
JOHN DELFINO NTORURU.............................................................APPLICANT
VS
TRANSPORT & ALLIED WORKERS UNION................CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 7th August 2013, I dismissed the Applicant's application for review of the award of the Court issued on 24th July 2003. On 16th April 2015, the Applicant filed an application for review of my ruling. Following a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent by notice dated 9th June 2015, the Applicant withdrew this application on 6th July 2015.
2. Subsequently, the Applicant filed another application on 14th December 2015 seeking interpretation of the award of the Court delivered on 24th July 2003. Attached to this application is a memorandum in support of review brought under Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 32 of the Rules.
3. In its grounds of opposition filed on 8th February 2016, the Respondent states that:
The application offends Rule 32(7) of the Rules of this Court as it seeks to review a ruling arising from a previous application for review;
The matters raised in the application were substantively determined by the Court in its ruling delivered on 7th August 2013 and are therefore res judicata. The application therefore offends the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act;
This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an application for review of a ruling arising from a previous application for review. If the Applicant is aggrieved by the ruling of the Court, the only avenue open to him is an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
4. I have looked at the Applicant's application together with the supporting memorandum and grounds and find that although the application is headed 'Interpretation of Award' it is an application for review in substance. No particular part of the award has been presented for interpretation.
5. What the Applicant projects is a dissatisfaction with the award of the Court delivered on 24th July 2003 and this Court has already dealt with this matter in a previous review application brought by the Applicant in 2013. That being the case, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's application. I must add that this Court is now functus officio in this matter and any further redress can only be availed by the Court of Appeal.
6. The result is that the Applicant's application fails and is dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
John Delfino Ntoruru (Applicant in person)
Mr. Molenje for the Respondent