[2014] KEELRC 466 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised in the application for review and the response thereto are matters that would be more appropriately resolved during the substantive hearing of the case, where parties will have the opportunity to call evidence. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications should be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 466 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: 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 Prior Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for review declined; no substantive findings made; parties directed to fix the case for substantive hearing.
- Judges
- DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Errors on Face of Record
- 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)
Applicant
De La Rue Currency & Security Print Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the ruling.
- 2 Whether there are sufficient reasons to review and set aside the previous ruling.
- 3 Whether the issues raised in the application for review should be determined at the substantive hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised in the application for review and the response thereto are matters that would be more appropriately resolved during the substantive hearing of the case, where parties will have the opportunity to call evidence. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications should be discouraged unless they raise issues that would result in injustice to the applicant, as addressing such issues at the hearing promotes substantive justice and reduces delay. Consequently, the court declined to make substantive findings on the application for review and directed that the issues be raised during the substantive hearing or in final submissions.
Court Disposition
Application for review declined; no substantive findings made; parties directed to fix the case for substantive hearing.
Orders
- The issues raised in the application for review to be raised in the substantive case during the hearing and/or in the 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 Otieno for Claimant