[2018] KEELRC 1522 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1522 (KLR)

The court held that its review jurisdiction does not extend to awarding house allowance for months where no pay slips were produced, as this would require re-evaluating the evidence and standard of proof, which is not permissible under review but rather on appeal. The court found that house allowance was correctly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1522 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rose Akoth Ogwang; Respondent: CIC General Insurance Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1525 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Review Jurisdiction, House Allowance Claims, Error Apparent on Record
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review Jurisdiction House Allowance Claims Error Apparent on Record

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

Rose Akoth Ogwang

Applicant

CIC General Insurance Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Review Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should review its judgment to award house allowance for months where no pay slips were produced.
  2. 2 Whether failure to award house allowance for such months constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that its review jurisdiction does not extend to awarding house allowance for months where no pay slips were produced, as this would require re-evaluating the evidence and standard of proof, which is not permissible under review but rather on appeal. The court found that house allowance was correctly awarded only for the months supported by documentary evidence, and the alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The motion dated 5 March 2018 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.