[2014] KEHC 8552 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 8552 (KLR)

The court considered whether the applicant had met the threshold for review of its earlier ruling, specifically whether new and important evidence had been discovered that could not have been produced at the time of the original decision despite due diligence. The applicant demonstrated that three of the seven...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 8552 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Paper Manufacturers & Allied Workers; Respondent: Highland Paper Mills Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 105 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Ruling
Outcome
application for review granted
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Review of Court Ruling
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Collective Bargaining Agreement Review of Court Ruling

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paper Manufacturers & Allied Workers

Applicant

Highland Paper Mills Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discovered new and important evidence justifying review of the court's ruling delivered on 30th July 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the legal requirements for declaring employees redundant under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's financial incapacity and operational closure warrant review of the previous ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered whether the applicant had met the threshold for review of its earlier ruling, specifically whether new and important evidence had been discovered that could not have been produced at the time of the original decision despite due diligence. The applicant demonstrated that three of the seven employees intended for retrenchment had resigned voluntarily, and that the remaining four were given notice of redundancy and were to be paid as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement, with financing from Maganlal Stores Ltd. The applicant also established that the company had technically closed down and lacked the financial capacity to continue operations. The court found that...

Court Disposition

application for review granted

Orders

  • The ruling delivered on 30th July 2014 is reviewed.
  • The applicant is permitted to proceed with redundancy and payment of the affected employees as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement.