Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherApplication dated 20th June 2013· [2014] KEELRC 466 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) v De La Rue Currency & Security Print Limited [2014] KEELRC 466 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
6 May 2014
MOMaureen Onyango
297 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court declined to review its earlier ruling, saying the issues raised belonged at the full hearing, not in more preliminary skirmishes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent in the main suit filed an application dated 20th June 2013 seeking review of the court's ruling delivered on 15th November 2012, which had dismissed the Respondent's preliminary objection. The grounds were mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record, that the ruling required clarification, and that there were sufficient reasons for review. The applicant filed a memorandum of review on 5th April 2013, and the Claimant responded by memorandum dated 21st June 2013. The applicant sought that the review be allowed, the ruling be set aside in its entirety, and the case be fixed for substantive hearing. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango noted that the ruling under review had already made substantially the same order the applicant sought - that the case proceed to full hearing. She found that the issues raised by both sides would be resolved if the case were heard substantively with parties given an opportunity to call evidence. Applying the principle that interlocutory applications must be discouraged unless injustice would result, she declined to make substantive findings on the review application. She ordered that the issues raised in the review application be raised in the substantive case during the hearing and/or final submissions, directed parties to fix the case for substantive hearing, and delivered the ruling in open court on 6th May 2014.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interlocutory ruling of 15th November 2012 should be reviewed on grounds of errors apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or sufficient reasons

Holding

The court made no substantive findings on the review application and directed that the issues raised be ventilated at the substantive hearing

Reasoning

The court observed that the issues raised in the review application and the response would be resolved if the case were heard substantively with parties given an opportunity to call evidence. It noted that the ruling under review had already made substantially the same order as the applicant sought - that the case proceeds to full hearing. It held that interlocutory applications should be discouraged where issues can be addressed at the hearing, to reduce delay and achieve substantive justice.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Interlocutory applications must be discouraged where the issues raised can be addressed at the substantive hearing, unless injustice would result to the applicant, as this reduces delay and promotes substantive justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The issues raised in the application for review shall be raised in the substantive case during the hearing and/or in the final submissions
  2. 2.No substantive findings are made on the application for review
  3. 3.Parties directed to fix the case for substantive hearing
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent power of the court to review its own interlocutory rulings (application for review of the court's ruling of 15th November 2012)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) v De La Rue Currency & Security Print Limited [2014] KEELRC 466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Application dated 20th June 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/466/eng@2014-03-06

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