AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 353 of 2014· [2015] KEELRC 725 (KLR)
Beatrice Adhiambo Odero v Smallholder Horticulture Marketing Programme (Shomap) [2015] KEELRC 725 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru on the Claimant's motion for review of a judgment delivered on 6 February 2015, in which the Respondent was ordered to pay her Kshs 186,750/- being wages she would have earned up to December 2014 when her fixed term contract with the SHoMAP programme would have lapsed. The Claimant sought review on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, contending that the Court should have awarded 12 rather than 6 months' wages. Her supporting affidavit also advanced that she had omitted the reliefs of annual leave and relocation allowance from the Memorandum of Claim, and that counsel had forgotten to produce a document showing discriminatory wage payment between employees. The Respondent opposed, submitting that failure to plead all prayers was not an error apparent on the face of the record, that the contemplated error must be the Court's and not a litigant's advocate's, and citing Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries Ltd (2014) eKLR. The Court held that no error apparent was demonstrated: the unpleaded reliefs could not be gained through review, the Court was not required to be a 'Hercules' regarding unplaced material, and the 6 months' award was intentionally tied to the balance of the contractual term and the projected close of the SHoMAP project. The motion was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Key legal issues
#01
Error apparent on the face of the record as a ground for review
Holding
No error apparent was demonstrated; the omission of reliefs and evidence was a litigant/counsel error, not a court error
Reasoning
The Court held that the contemplated error must be an error made by the Court, not by a litigant's advocate. The Claimant failed to plead entitlements to annual leave and relocation allowance and produced no document on wage discrimination at trial. The award of 6 months' wages was deliberate, tied to the close of the SHoMAP project, matching the balance of the fixed term contract. Review could not cure pleading deficiencies.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- Failure by a litigant to plead her full case, and a determination based on insufficient material, does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record
- A court is not expected to know facts not placed before it
- Reliefs never pleaded cannot be obtained through a review application
Court orders
#- 1.The motion for review was dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the rules governing review (motion for review on ground of error apparent on the face of the record)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Beatrice Adhiambo Odero v Smallholder Horticulture Marketing Programme (Shomap) [2015] KEELRC 725 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 353 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/725/eng@2015-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.