[2023] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)

The Court found that the Respondent had not met the threshold for review as set out in Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. The Respondent failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important evidence that was not within its knowledge at the time of the original order, nor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Robert Walker; Respondent: Valar Frontiers (Kenya) Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 161 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AK Nzei
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Filing of Evidence, Procedural Timelines, Admissibility of Documents
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Court Orders Filing of Evidence Procedural Timelines Admissibility of Documents

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Robert Walker

Applicant

Valar Frontiers (Kenya) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Orders

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent has met the threshold for review of the Court's orders dated 2/2/2023 to allow late filing of documentary evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the Respondent constitute sufficient cause for review under Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Respondent had not met the threshold for review as set out in Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. The Respondent failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important evidence that was not within its knowledge at the time of the original order, nor did it show any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The reasons advanced for non-compliance, including the need for clearance and government reorganization, were already considered in previous applications for extension of time and did not constitute sufficient cause for review. The Court emphasized that it had already granted an extension with a specific order...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 8/2/2023 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.