[2014] KEELRC 455 (KLR)
The court determined that the issues raised in the application for review did not warrant interlocutory intervention, as they could be adequately addressed during the substantive hearing of the case. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications should be discouraged unless they raise matters that would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 455 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO); Respondent: De La Rue Currency & Security Print Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 641 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for review declined; parties directed to proceed to substantive hearing.
- Judges
- DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Preliminary Objection, Substantive Hearing
- 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 Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO)
Claimant
De La Rue Currency & Security Print Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the ruling.
- 2 Whether sufficient reasons exist for review of the court's ruling of 15th November 2012.
- 3 Whether the issues raised in the review application should be determined at the substantive hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the issues raised in the application for review did not warrant interlocutory intervention, as they could be adequately addressed during the substantive hearing of the case. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications should be discouraged unless they raise matters that would result in injustice if not addressed immediately. Since the applicant's concerns could be resolved at the full hearing, the court declined to make substantive findings on the review application and directed that the matters be raised during the substantive hearing or in final submissions. This approach was adopted to reduce delay and promote substantive justice.
Court Disposition
Application for review declined; parties directed to proceed to substantive hearing.
Orders
- Issues raised in the application for review to be raised in the substantive case during hearing and/or in final submissions.
- Parties are directed to fix the case for substantive hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
CAUSE NO. 641 OF 2010
KENYA UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF VOLUNTARY & CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS (KUEVACO)……………………..….….……………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
DE LA RUE CURRENCY & SECURITY PRINT LIMITED…………..RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant herein filed an application dated 20th June 2013 for review of a ruling of this court delivered on 15th November 2012 on the grounds that:-
There are mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record.
The Ruling requires clarification.
There are sufficient reasons for review of the ruling.
The applicant filed the Memorandum of review on 5th April 2013.
The Claimant responded to the application for review by it’s memorandum dated 21st June 2013.
I have gone through both memorandums which are fairly detailed.
The applicants prayers are that the application for review be allowed, the ruling be set aside in it’s entirety and the case be fixed for substantive hearing. In my ruling dismissing the Respondent’s preliminary objection I had made substantially the same order that the case proceeds to full hearing.
I find that the issues raised by both the Respondent in the application for review and response by the Claimant touch on issues that would be resolved if the case is heard substantively and parties given an opportunity to call evidence . Interlocutory applications unless raising issues that would result in injustice to the applicant, must be discouraged if the issues can be addressed at the hearing. This will reduce delay and result in substantive justice.
I therefore order that the issues raised in the application for review be raised in the substantive case during the hearing and/or in the final submissions.
For these reasons, I make no substantive findings on the application for review.
Parties are directed to fix the case for substantive hearing.
Read in open Court this 6thday of May, 2014
HON. LADY JUSTICE MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms. Waweru holding brief for Omondi for Respondent
Janitor Odin Otienofor Claimant