[2018] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)
The court found that the application for review was filed three years after the judgment without any explanation for the delay, which constituted inordinate delay. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or provide evidence that the issue of gratuity was overlooked by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Seth Atianyi Ingairu; Applicant: Geoffrey Obado Ngesa; Respondent: Eco-Bank Kenya Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 266 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Inordinate Delay, Gratuity Entitlement, Onus of Proof
- 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
Seth Atianyi Ingairu
Applicant
Geoffrey Obado Ngesa
Applicant
Eco-Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review of judgment was filed within a reasonable time period.
- 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the judgment.
- 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to gratuity under the respondent's policy.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for review was filed three years after the judgment without any explanation for the delay, which constituted inordinate delay. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or provide evidence that the issue of gratuity was overlooked by the trial judge. The requirements for review of judgment were not met, and the applicant did not discharge the onus of proof. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 266 OF 2013
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
1. SETH ATIANYI INGAIRU
2. GEOFFREY OBADO NGESA.....................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
ECO-BANK KENYA LIMITED.....................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant seeks the court to review the Judgment delivered on 3rd December, 2014 and award the 1st Claimant gratuity and costs of the application.
2. The application was filed on 1st December, 2017 three (3) years after the judgment was delivered.
3. The application is opposed on the following grounds:-
(i) There has been inordinate delay in bringing the application.
(ii) The requirements that guide review of judgments have not been met.
(iii) The matter is resjudicata.
4. In the case of Utalii Transport Company Limited & 3 others v NIC Bank Limited & Another [2014]3KLR Justice Gikonyo stated –
“whereas there is no precise measure of what amounts to inordinate delay. And whereas what amounts to inordinate delay will differ from case to case depending on the circumstances of each case; the subject matter of the case, the nature of the case, the explanation given for the delay and so on and so forth. Nevertheless inordinate delay should not be difficult to ascertain once it occurs; the litmus test being that it should be an amount of delay which leads the court to an inescapable conclusion that it is inordinate and therefore, in excusable.”
5. This application was brought three (3) years from the date the judgment was delivered. No explanation was been given for that delay in the Notice of Motion. Looked at from the perspective of the limitation period placed on Employment and Labour matters under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 which is three (3) years, the delay of three years before bringing an application to review a judgment is indeed inordinate and the court finds so.
6. Secondly, the applicant states that there was an error apparent on the face of the record that the applicant having worked for 20 years and the policy of the Respondent that employees who work for 10 years and above are entitled to gratuity.
7. There is no explanation at all in the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit how failure to award the applicant gratuity was an error on the face of the record. It is not apparent that this was a fact made known to the trial judge, but had inadvertedly overlooked the same.
8. A perusal of the judgment itself in the absence of any deposition by the applicant does not make alleged error apparent at all.
9. The applicant bears the onus of proof, and has failed to discharge that onus.
10. The application is dismissed with costs for the reason that the requirements for review of the judgment have not been met and that the application was filed after inordinate delay.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 12th day of April, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Mwamu for Claimants/Applicant
Mr. Kimani for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk