[2024] KEELRC 824 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling delivered on 1st December 2022. The court held that if the applicant was dissatisfied with the ruling on any matter of law or fact, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal, not to seek a review....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 824 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union; Respondent: Exotic Penina Fields Group (Formerly Carnations Plants)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2045 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Recognition Agreement, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union
Applicant
Exotic Penina Fields Group (Formerly Carnations Plants)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the court's ruling delivered on 1st December 2022.
- 2 Whether the court should reinstate the order for stay of proceedings pending determination of the application to revoke the recognition agreement.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to revisit its own findings on law and fact after delivering a ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling delivered on 1st December 2022. The court held that if the applicant was dissatisfied with the ruling on any matter of law or fact, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal, not to seek a review. The court further held that it is functus officio and has no jurisdiction to revisit its own findings on law and fact in the absence of a clear error or other grounds for review as stipulated by Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. Consequently, the application for review was found to be misconceived, lacking in merit, and an abuse of the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 19/5/2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union v Exotic Penina Fields Group (Formerly Carnations Plants) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2045 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 824 (KLR) (18 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 824 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2045 of 2017
MN Nduma, J
April 18, 2024
Between
Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union
Claimant
and
Exotic Penina Fields Group (Formerly Carnations Plants)
Respondent
Ruling
1. In a notice of motion dated 19/5/2023 the applicant moves the court for orders:-1. Spent2. That in the alternative, the honourable court be pleased to correct and/or rectify its ruling delivered on 1st day of December 2022 and make a finding to prayer 3 of the applicant’s application dated 23rd November 2021. 3.That the honourable court be pleased to reconsider the pleadings, proceedings and submissions of the parties and make a ruling as can be supported by the record of the court.4. That the cost of this suit be provided for.
2. The application is premised on grounds 1 to 6 set out on the notice of motion the summary of which is that the ruling of the court has an error apparent on the face of the record which is sufficient reason for the court to review its ruling and reinstate the order for stay of the proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the respondent,s application seeking to have the National Labour Board revoke and/or terminate the recognition agreement dated 28/10/2013.
3. The application is opposed vide replying affidavit of the claimant/respondent who deposes that the present application is mala fide, is incompetent, mis-conceived, bad in law and lacks merit.
4. That there exists a valid recognition agreement between parties dated 28/10/2013 which the respondent/applicant signed upon being ordered to do so by Hon. Justice Rika.
5. That there is no basis for the respondent/applicant to state that the court overlooked prayer 2 in the application dated 23/11/2021.
6. That the application be dismissed with costs.
Determination 7. The court has considered the depositions and submissions filed by the parties. The court has also carefully considered its ruling delivered on 11/2/2023 and is satisfied that the ruling has no error disclosed by the applicant on the face of the record in terms of Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (procedure) Rules 2016.
8. If the applicant was dissatisfied with the finding of the court in the ruling on any matter of law or fact, the applicant should have filed an appeal against the ruling.
9. The court has no jurisdiction to revisit its own finding on law and facts in the said ruling. The court is functus officio.
10. The application is misconceived, lacks merit and is an abuse of court process. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024MATHEWS NDERI NDUMAJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Michuki for applicantMr. Saye for respondentMr. Kemboi, Court Assistant