Anne Kirumba Riungu v Telkom Kenya Limited [2015] KEELRC 849 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to review its own stay-related orders, confirming that parties who appeal cannot use review as a second bite.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 19th May 2015 ruling should be reviewed on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record
No review granted; the court held that review cannot be used to revisit stay orders already made, particularly where the matter is pending before the Court of Appeal.
The court noted that the orders sought to be reviewed arose from a ruling dismissing the respondent's injunction application following a declined stay application now pending before the Court of Appeal. Inviting the court to review, revise or interfere with those orders would negate the principles governing stay of execution and defeat what was before the appellate court. The court therefore declined the orders sought.
Criteria for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Review lies on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, but not merely because the court reached an erroneous conclusion of law.
The court set out the criteria for review: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. It emphasised that the error must be self-evident, and that a misconstruction of the law or a judge proceeding on an incorrect exposition of the law does not constitute a good reason for review.
Legal principles established
#- The grounds for review (discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason) apply only where the aggrieved party has not preferred an appeal; a good ground of appeal is not necessarily a good ground for review.
- An error on review must be self-evident; it is not enough that the court would have taken another view or proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review of the ruling delivered on 19th May 2015 is declined
- 2.The respondent shall meet the costs of the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules; Section 26 of the Labour Institutions Act as read with Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act; sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anne Kirumba Riungu v Telkom Kenya Limited [2015] KEELRC 849 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/849/eng@2015-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.