[2014] KEELRC 331 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not rely on any of the permissible grounds for review as set out in Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedures) Rules, 2010. There was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, no breach of written law, and no need for clarification. The salary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 331 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Misori Orago; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1012 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Terminal Benefits, Compensation Calculation, Reinstatement, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Costs Award
- 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
Paul Misori Orago
Applicant
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the judgment under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedures) Rules, 2010.
- 2 Whether the calculation of damages should be based on a higher gross salary as claimed by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the award of terminal benefits, compensation, and exemplary damages should be substituted by reinstatement or a higher monetary award.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not rely on any of the permissible grounds for review as set out in Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedures) Rules, 2010. There was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, no breach of written law, and no need for clarification. The salary used in the original judgment was based on the CBA and payslip in place at the time of termination, and the applicant's request to substitute the award or recalculate damages on a different basis did not meet the threshold for review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1012 OF 2010
PAUL MISORI ORAGO ……………………….……...CLAIMANT
VERSUS
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI …………..…….… RESPONDENT
Mr. Ogeto Ongori for the Claimant / Applicant
Mr. Kwanga for the Respondent
RULING
1. Claimant seeks review of the judgment of the Court dated 8th November 2013 as follows;
Substitute the Award of terminal benefits, compensation and exemplary damages in the sum of Kshs.772,025/= by an Award of reinstatement and in the alternative;
apply the Gross salary at scale 16 that would have been earned by the Claimant as at the date of Judgment in the sum of Kshs.44,000/= (Kshs.29,000/= basic salary plus Kshs.15,000/= House allowance), in the calculation of damages in place of the Gross salary of Kshs.18,135/= (Basic salary Kshs.11,385 plus House Allowance of Kshs.6,750/=) which appertained at the time of termination.
2. this salary applied in the Judgment was based on the CBA in place then and the payslip for the month of July 2006.
3. The Applicant prays that the total Award of Kshs.772,025/= be substituted by a total Award of kshs.1,160,000/=.
4. Review of Judgment of The Industrial Court is governed by Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedures) Rule, 2010 where;
there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not in the knowledge of the applicant inspite exercise of due diligence;
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
if the Judgment is in breach of any written law; or
if the Judgment requires clarification; and
for any other sufficient reasons.
The present applicant does not rely on any of the above permissible grounds to warrant a review of the Judgment of the Court.
The Application is without merit and accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of July, 2014.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE