[2017] KEELRC 188 (KLR)
The Court found that the Claimant's application for review was without merit because the denial of costs was based on his failure to serve submissions on the Respondent, not on late filing. Regarding the Respondent's application, the Court determined that awarding the Claimant the Staff Savings Scheme contributions...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Michira; Respondent: National Cereals & Produce Board
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 492 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Review Applications
- Outcome
- Claimant's review application dismissed with costs; Respondent's review application allowed; previous monetary award set aside.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Costs Award, Review of Judgment, Staff Savings Scheme
- 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
Peter Michira
Claimant
National Cereals & Produce Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Review Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant was wrongly denied costs due to alleged failure to serve submissions.
- 2 Whether the award of Kshs 1,391,827.70 for Staff Savings Scheme contributions amounted to unjust enrichment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Claimant's application for review was without merit because the denial of costs was based on his failure to serve submissions on the Respondent, not on late filing. Regarding the Respondent's application, the Court determined that awarding the Claimant the Staff Savings Scheme contributions would result in unjust enrichment, as he had already received those funds. The Court therefore reviewed and set aside the previous award of Kshs 1,391,827.70 and declined the head of relief, awarding costs of the application to the Respondent.
Court Disposition
Claimant's review application dismissed with costs; Respondent's review application allowed; previous monetary award set aside.
Orders
- Claimant's application for review is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
- Respondent's application for review is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 492 OF 2014
PETER MICHIRA CLAIMANT
v
NATIONAL CEREALS & PRODUCE BOARD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In a judgment delivered on 28 April 2017, the Court dismissed an unfair termination of employment claim presented by the Claimant, but nevertheless awarded him Kshs 1,391,827/70, being his and the Respondent’s contributions towards the Staff Savings Scheme.
2. In the same judgment, the Court denied the Claimant costs.
3. Both parties, uncharacteristically filed applications seeking review.
Claimant’s application dated 22 June 2017
4. The Claimant sought review of the order denying him costs on the ground that he had filed his submissions within the agreed timelines.
5. The Claimant’s application is not only misguided but misplaced because paragraph 39 of the judgment gave the reasons for denying him costs as the failure to serve his submissions upon the Respondent and not failure to file within the set timelines.
6. The Court therefore dismisses the Claimant’s application with costs to the Respondent.
Respondent’s review application
7. For the Respondent, review was sought on the ground that it erroneously understood and admitted in its submissions that the Staff Provident Fund and Staff Savings Scheme were the same.
8. It was urged that since the Claimant had exhausted his Staff Savings Scheme contributions (statement was attached to the application), it would be tantamount to unjust enrichment to pay him twice.
9. This Court can review its judgment on sufficient cause being shown.
10. Paying the Claimant contributions from the Staff Savings Scheme twice would not only be unjust enrichment but legally unconscionable.
11. No wonder, the Claimant did not file any response to the review application by the Respondent.
12. The Court would allow the application for review, and review the judgment dated 28 April 2017 and substitute the order awarding Kshs 1,391,827/20 with an order declining the head of relief.
13. Costs of the Respondent’s application in the Cause.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 8th day of December 2017.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Wekhomba instructed by J.K. Kimani & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mr. Lutta instructed by Lutta & Co. Advocates
Court Assistants Nixon/Martin