[2024] KEELRC 1017 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 1017 (KLR)

The court found that the statement of claim bore a court stamp dated 10/8/2019, and there was no prior allegation or evidence presented that the stamp was affixed in error or illegally. The discrepancy between the date on the stamp and the date on the pleading was not raised during the hearing of the preliminary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 1017 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Union of National Research And Allied Institutes Staff Of Kenya (Unrisk); Respondent: Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (Kalro)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E648 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Review of Preliminary Objection Decision
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Error on Face of Record, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Preliminary Objection Error on Face of Record Review of Court Orders

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

Union of National Research And Allied Institutes Staff Of Kenya (Unrisk)

Applicant

Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (Kalro)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Review of Preliminary Objection Decision

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the date of filing of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the court should review or revisit its earlier ruling based on the alleged error.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statement of claim bore a court stamp dated 10/8/2019, and there was no prior allegation or evidence presented that the stamp was affixed in error or illegally. The discrepancy between the date on the stamp and the date on the pleading was not raised during the hearing of the preliminary objection. Therefore, the court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review of its earlier ruling. The application was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court noting that any discrepancies could be addressed at the hearing of the suit on its merits.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 19/10/2023 is dismissed with costs in the cause.