Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2013] KEELRC 693 (KLR)

George Nyabira Nyatama & 3 Others v Gusii Mwalimu Co-Operative Savings & Credit Society Ltd [2013] KEELRC 693 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
30 July 2013
977 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court dismissed workers' bid to reopen a judgment, confirming that review requires new evidence or a clear error, not just disagreement with the outcome.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants filed a Memorandum supporting application for review dated and filed on 4/7/2013 under Rule 32(3) and (4) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010, seeking review of the court's judgment of 19.6.2013. They sought reinstatement, contending they had not been out of employment for three years as required by Section 12(3)(vii) of the Industrial Court Act 2011 because they were on leave and paid salary up to September 2011, and further sought payment of salary up to age 60 as lost years under Section 12(3)(v), (vi) and (vii). The respondents opposed through grounds of opposition dated 16.7.2013, arguing there was no new evidence, no mistake apparent on the face of the record and no sufficient reason for review; all matters raised were within the claimants' knowledge at the time of judgment and at best belonged in an appeal, and entertaining them would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own judgment. The court framed four issues and found it had jurisdiction to review under Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Rule 32. However, on the merits it held the claimants had been served with retirement notices on 30.11.2010, and the six months' salary paid thereafter was a gesture of appreciation, not a renewal of the retirement notice. There being no new evidence or error apparent on the record, the application for review was dismissed on 30/07/2013, with no costs order recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to review the court's own judgment

Holding

The court has jurisdiction to hear the review application, being expressly conferred by Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010

Reasoning

Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 empowers the court to review its judgments, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Rules. Rule 32(1) sets out the grounds for review, and Rule 32(2) directs that applications on grounds (b) to (e) be made to the judge who passed the decree. The application was therefore properly before the court.

p. 2
02

Whether grounds for review under Rule 32(1) were established

Holding

No discovery of new and important matter or evidence, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient reason was demonstrated; the application was not merited and was dismissed

Reasoning

The claimants contended the three-year reinstatement window under Section 12(3)(vii) ran from October 2011 since salaries were paid to September 2011. The court held this was no error: the claimants had been served with retirement notices on 30.11.2010, and the six months' salary paid thereafter was a gesture of appreciation, not a renewal of employment. Matters known at the time of judgment could not ground review.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Industrial Court has power to review its own judgments, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010
  • A party who seeks to revisit issues decided in a judgment, absent new evidence or error on the face of the record, must pursue an appeal; a court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rule 32(1), (2), (3) and (4)
  • Industrial Court Act 2011Section 16
  • Industrial Court Act 2011Section 12(3)(vii)
  • Industrial Court Act 2011Section 12(3)(v), (vi) and (vii)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "George Nyabira Nyatama & 3 Others v Gusii Mwalimu Co-Operative Savings & Credit Society Ltd [2013] KEELRC 693 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/693/eng@2013-07-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.