Michael Kagoma Maina v Inspector General of Police & 2 others [2014] KEELRC 43 (KLR)

Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 provides five grounds for review: discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, decision in breach of written law, need for clarification, and sufficient reasons. The Claimant invoked none of the first four grounds. The court held that the doctrine of comity and the delimitation of jurisdiction mean a delivered judgment cannot be revisited merely to await another court's outcome; parties should make material disclosures to each court so jurisdiction can be delimited.

The Respondents objected that the Claimant anchored the review on the wrong provisions of law. The court held that since the Respondents were not prejudiced by the mis-citation, the objection did not defeat the application. In any event, the application failed on the merits, so the point was academic.

The gravamen of the Embu High Court case is malicious prosecution, which remains pending there; the Industrial Court decided only the employment question. An allegation that the trial court failed to address an argued issue is a ground of appeal, not a ground of review, since it does not fall within any of the Rule 32 grounds.