Martin Muleshe Shiroko v Wanjohi Consulting Engineers Limited [2016] KEELRC 1410 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to review own judgment
The Court has jurisdiction under Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules to review its judgment where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Court set out the five grounds of review under Rule 32(1), including error apparent on the face of the record and clarification. It rejected the Respondents' argument that the proper remedy was an appeal, holding that an obvious error on the record is a matter for the trial court itself, not the Court of Appeal.
Underpayment of salary claim
The Court found an apparent error in its judgment which had omitted to grant the underpayment of salary evidenced by pay slip MM3(a) and Appendix MM3, and granted Kshs.1,439,529/=.
The judgment had recorded the exit salary as 27,048/= per Appendix MM3 while the pay slip showed 21,775/=, an unexplainable downward review. The Court found the omission to award the underpayment of Kshs.1,439,529/= was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Other claims requiring further evidence
Claims such as overtime, public holidays, rest days and gratuity could not be granted on review as they would require further evidence or belong on appeal.
The Court distinguished between errors apparent on the face of the record, which it can correct on review, and claims requiring additional evidence or raising matters properly for an appellate court. Only the underpayment claim met the review threshold; the rest were refused.
Legal principles established
#- The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under Rule 32(1) of its Procedure Rules to review its own awards, judgments or rulings on grounds including error apparent on the face of the record, and such an error need not be pursued on appeal.
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious, visible to the naked eye, and cannot require analysis by production of further evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Application for review allowed only to the extent of granting an additional award of Kshs.1,439,529/= as underpayment of salary
- 2.All other orders in the judgment dated 17.4.2015 remain the same
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martin Muleshe Shiroko v Wanjohi Consulting Engineers Limited [2016] KEELRC 1410 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment (application dated 12.11.2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1410/eng@2016-04-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.