[2015] KEELRC 589 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the alleged underpayment was a new and important matter that could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the original claim. The terms and conditions of service were available and should have been reviewed by the applicant, who is the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: KUDHEIHA Workers; Respondent: Catering & Tourism Development Levy Trustees
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 11 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Award
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Award, Underpayment of Wages, Terms and Conditions of Service
- 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
KUDHEIHA Workers
Applicant
Catering & Tourism Development Levy Trustees
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the award based on discovery of new and important evidence.
- 2 Whether the delay in seeking review is justified under the rules of the Court.
- 3 Whether the award was conditional upon the decision of the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA).
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the alleged underpayment was a new and important matter that could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the original claim. The terms and conditions of service were available and should have been reviewed by the applicant, who is the grievant's union. The Court also found that the award was not conditional upon the decision of the Retirement Benefits Authority, and that the application for review was brought after an inordinate delay of almost seven years. Consequently, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 11 OF 2006
KUDHEIHA WORKERS…………………….................................…………….………..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
CATERING & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT LEVY TRUSTEES……………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant in this matter seeks review of the award of the predecessor to this Court made on 30th May, 2008.
2. The application is brought on the grounds that the grievant was underpaid by Kshs.1995 and Kshs.2190 as salary and house allowance for the months of January, February and March, 1997 and further that the applicant could not apply for the review of the award because the grievant was handling his cause with RBA which took time to be determined after the Court directed the grievant to do so in its award.
3. Under the rules of this Court a review can be done where there is discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by the person at the time when the decree was passed or order made. The Court can further review its order on account of mistake or error on the face of the record or on account of the award being in breach of any written law.
4. I have reviewed the present application and it would seem to me to be premised on the first ground to wit, discovery of a new and important matter or evidence. The applicant avers that he was underpaid contrary to terms and conditions of service of the respondent, 1991 version.
5. It would therefore mean that at the time of filing this claim these terms and conditions existed and the grievant if he exercised due diligence, could have reviewed them and detected the underpayment. In his memorandum of claim the grievant makes no claim for underpayment which raised the reasonable presumption that there was no such thing.
6. Rule 32 does not simply say that upon discovery of an important matter or evidence the Court will do a review. The applicant must demonstrate that the discovery could not be made at the time of filing the suit even if the applicant exercised diligence. Terms and Conditions of Service is a very obvious document that one cannot say could not be obtained after exercise of due diligence. Further, the applicant is the grievant’s Union hence it is incredible that their member could suffer underpayment of wages without their notice.
7. Regarding the second ground for review, I have reviewed the award of the previous Court and could not find where that Court made its award conditional upon the decision of RBA. What that Court said was that it could not make any ruling on the grievant’s pension dues since any dispute on the same were governed by the RBA Act.
8. Further, this award was made in 2008, it is in ordinately late to seek a review almost seven years later. The respondent’s Counsel is therefore justified in raising objection on this ground.
9. In the upshot, the application for review is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.\
10. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 31st day of July 2015
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 31st day of July 2015
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge