Josephine Wanjiru Muiru v Novartis Phama Services Inc & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 652 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to reinstate struck-out respondents, confirming judges rarely reopen decisions without strong, well-documented grounds for review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the orders of 17th November 2014 should be reviewed or set aside
The application for review was declined as the grounds for review under Rule 32(1) were not met
Directions to file submissions were issued on 30th September 2014, giving the claimant over 37 days. The claimant only explained the closure of the registry on 14th November 2014, one day within that period, and counsel's failure to attend on 17th November 2014 was not explained. Averments by counsel about events he did not witness could not be confirmed. The orders made were not based on any mistake or misapplication of the law.
Legal principles established
#- Once the Court determines an application, it becomes functus officio and cannot go back on its decision without good cause
- Review applications must be founded on the limited grounds set out under Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
- A matter listed for mention cannot be heard unless parties consent
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 28th November 2014 declined
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josephine Wanjiru Muiru v Novartis Phama Services Inc & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 652 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). JR Misc. Application (Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/652/eng@2015-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.