[2016] KEELRC 262 (KLR)
The court held that the claimant's dissatisfaction with the failure to award exemplary damages for discrimination, and any alleged lack of clarity in the judgment, did not meet the threshold for review under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules. The court found that any error in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 262 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patricia Wangui Munene; Respondent: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 715 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Exemplary Damages, Discrimination Claims, Clarity of Judgment
- 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
Patricia Wangui Munene
Applicant
Equity Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its judgment to award exemplary damages for discrimination to the claimant.
- 2 Whether the judgment contained errors or lacked clarity warranting review under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claimant's dissatisfaction with the failure to award exemplary damages for discrimination, and any alleged lack of clarity in the judgment, did not meet the threshold for review under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules. The court found that any error in the application of the law regarding remedies was a matter for appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as it did not disclose any new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason to warrant review.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The claimant's application dated 17th May 2016 is dismissed.
- There is no order as to 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 715 OF 2012
PATRICIA WANGUI MUNENE……………..…………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK LIMITED………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant’s application dated 17th May 2016 seeks a review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 20th November 2015. The application is based on the following grounds:
a) The judgment by the Court left a lot of uncertainties and window for different interpretations, thereby causing injustice to the Claimant;
b) That the judgment lacks in clarity and other material components;
c) That by failing to award the claimant exemplary damages for discrimination, the Court failed to give due regard to the maxim in equity ibi jus ibi redium (there is no wrong without a remedy).
2. The power of the Court to review its own decision is donated by Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Procedure Rules. Rule 33(1) provides as follows:
(1) A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order of the Court may apply for a review of the award, judgment or ruling-
(a) if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by that person at the time when the decree was passed or the order made; or
(b) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(c) on account of the award, judgment or ruling being in breach of any written law; or
(d) if the award, judgment or ruling requires clarification;or
(e) for any other sufficient reasons.
3. The Claimant’s application is premised on failure by the Court to grant her exemplary damages. In reaching its decision on this head, the Court considered the remedies available under the employment law applicable to the Claimant’s case, being the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226). Any error made in this regard would be a misapprehension of the law and it seems to me that this is a matter for appeal and not review.
4. For this reason the Claimant’s application dated 17th May 2016 is dismissed with no order for costs.
5. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Miss Mwathe for the Claimant
Miss Kisaka for the Respondent