[2021] KEELRC 2194 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were matters that should be raised on appeal rather than through a review application. The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and could not reconsider its findings of law and fact. The application did not meet the threshold for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 2194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilfred Olooko Muroka; Respondent: Nzoia Sugar Company Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 47 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Errors on Face of Record, Functus Officio, Procedure Rules, Appeal Vs Review
- 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
Wilfred Olooko Muroka
Applicant
Nzoia Sugar Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can review, vary or set aside its own judgment on the basis of errors apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the applicant's grievances are properly addressed through review or should be pursued by way of appeal.
- 3 Whether the trial court is functus officio after delivering its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were matters that should be raised on appeal rather than through a review application. The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and could not reconsider its findings of law and fact. The application did not meet the threshold for review under Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, as no error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason was demonstrated. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 14/10/2019 is dismissed.
- Ruling delivered online with parties' consent due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT BUNGOMA
CAUSE NO. 47 OF 2018
WILFRED OLOOKO MUROKA................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
NZOIA SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant filed application dated 14/10/2019 on the even date praying for an Order that;
(a)The Honourable Court be pleased to review, vary and or set aside its judgment dated 26/9/2019 in Cause No. 47 of 2008.
2. The application is premised on the following grounds:-
(a) That there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the judgment listed in paragraphs 2 to 7 thereof.
3. The application was opposed by a replying affidavit deposed to by the legal officer of the Respondent M/s Ritah N. Mukhongo.
4. The deponent states that the application is a gross abuse of the process of the Court in that the applicant having been dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court ought to have filed an Appeal at the Court of Appeal but not to invite the Court to revisit its decision on factual matters set out in the judgment.
5. That the application does not meet the criteria set out in Rule 33(1) (a) to (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.
6. That indeed the Court made a proper evaluation of facts presented and rendered an appropriate judgment which is subject for appeal before the Court of Appeal.
7. The Court has considered all the matters raised by the applicant and is satisfied they are all matters that may be properly raised before the Court of Appeal but not before the trial judge.
8. The trial Court is now functus officio and cannot reconsider its findings of law and fact made in its judgment.
9. The application clearly lacks merit and is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of February, 2021.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of the declaration of measures restricting court of operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020, this ruling has been delivered to the parties online with their consent. They have waived compliance with Order 21 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
JUDGE
Appearances
Applicant in person
M/s J.O. Makal Advocate for the respondent
Chrispo: Court clerk