Edward Acholla v Sogea Satom Kenya Branch & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to undo its earlier ruling because the company had no new evidence, no obvious error, and no recorded settlement agreement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the review application meets the Rule 32 threshold
It does not; there is no new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, breach of written law or other sufficient reason
The court restated the review criteria under Rule 32 and section 12 of the Industrial Court Act, and held that a review lies only where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The respondents identified none: they were effectively inviting the court to revisit its findings, which is impermissible. A good ground of appeal is not a ground for review, and a misconstruction of the law does not suffice.
Whether a consent order exists obliging refund of the deposited settlement sum
No consent order exists; the proposed consent judgment was never recorded as an order of the Court and the matter remains as filed
The court found that the basis of the 1st December 2014 ruling was that the respondents had merely proposed a judgment by consent, which was not recorded as the order of the Court. Consequently the deposits made under the proposed consent were made outside the Court, and orders for their refund, release with interest and costs could not be sanctioned within the review prayers.
Whether the order to deposit Kshs.5,000,000.00 required clarification
No; there is a valid unchallenged order directing the deposit and the modalities of holding the monies have already been addressed
The court observed that a valid order directing the respondents to deposit Kshs.5,000,000.00 made on 18th February 2014 had not been challenged and the modalities of holding such monies had already been addressed. The review application did not challenge that order. Non-compliance, if any, should be pursued through appropriate enforcement applications, not review.
Legal principles established
#- The grounds for review are discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, breach of any written law, need for clarification, or any other sufficient reason, and such application shall be made to the judge who passed the decree or made the order.
- A good ground of appeal is not necessarily a good ground for review; the error must be self-evident and a misconstruction of the law is not a sufficient reason for review.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' application for review dated 11th December 2014 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court Act, section 12 and Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edward Acholla v Sogea Satom Kenya Branch & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. not stated in judgment (application dated 11th December 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1606/eng@2015-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.