Grace Achieng Ogot v Sukari Co-Operative Savings & Credit Society Ltd [2013] KEELRC 782 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to reopen a closed case for new evidence, confirming that parties must disclose all documents before hearings begin.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Re-opening a closed case to cross-examine on new evidence
Refused; once the claimant had testified and closed her case, fresh evidence and re-opening could not be allowed as it would be prejudicial
The court noted that rule 17(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules requires documents to be served before a case is set down for hearing. The case had not only been set down but hearing had commenced and the claimant had closed her case. Following the Supreme Court in Raila Odinga, the court held fresh evidence at that stage would prejudice the claimant and declined the application.
Whether review of the court's own orders was available
Refused; the applicants did not demonstrate the grounds for review
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal 230 of 2004 (Eldoret), the court restated the three grounds of review: discovery of new and important matter not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The applicants demonstrated none of these.
Whether the court can compel parties to settle out of court
No; ADR is encouraged but cannot be compelled
Section 15(1) of the Industrial Court Act encourages Alternative Dispute Resolution, but submission to that process must be voluntary. The court encouraged the parties to attempt settlement and was willing to stay proceedings for that purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Documents intended to be relied on must be served on the other party before the case is set down for hearing, and a party cannot re-open a closed case to introduce new evidence not previously disclosed
- Whether or not a decision or order should be reviewed is a matter within the judge's own discretion, exercisable only on demonstrated grounds of new matter, mistake apparent on the record, or sufficient reason
- Re-opening a case to introduce new evidence is not a mere procedural technicality excusable under Article 159(d) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.Re-opening of the claimant's case and introduction of new evidence declined
- 2.Prayers for review declined
- 3.Parties urged to explore an out-of-court settlement with proceedings stayed for that attempt
- 4.Leave to appeal granted and certified copy of the ruling to be supplied as prayed
- 5.Hearing set for 8/11/2013 while out-of-court settlement is explored
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(c) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Industrial Court Act 2011 Sections 15(1)(A) and (4), 16, 20(A); Rules 25 and 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Vincent Moseti v Charle Somoke Onsase & another [2017] KEELC 3008 (KLR)[2017] KEELC 3008 (KLR)31 Mar 2017
- Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels,Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers (Kudheiha) v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2015] KEELRC 839 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 839 (KLR)10 Jun 2015
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Achieng Ogot v Sukari Co-Operative Savings & Credit Society Ltd [2013] KEELRC 782 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/782/eng@2013-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.