[2017] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)

The court held that the claimant's application did not meet the legal requirements for a review of judgment. The application was, in substance, an attempt to have the court reconsider its own decision on the merits, which is not the purpose of a review. The court emphasized that review is only available in limited...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Kipkemoi Korir; Respondent: Hatari Security Guards Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1840 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DI Wasike
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Grounds for Review, Appeal Vs Review, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Grounds for Review Appeal Vs Review Costs Award

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Kipkemoi Korir

Applicant

Hatari Security Guards Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's application meets the legal threshold for review of judgment under the Employment and Labour Relations Court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the court can declare its own previous judgment unfair and illegal through a review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant's application did not meet the legal requirements for a review of judgment. The application was, in substance, an attempt to have the court reconsider its own decision on the merits, which is not the purpose of a review. The court emphasized that review is only available in limited circumstances, such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, none of which were demonstrated by the claimant. The court further stated that it cannot declare its own judgment unfair or illegal through a review application; such a challenge must be pursued through the appellate process. Accordingly, the application was found to be without merit...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The claimant's application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.