Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2016] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)

John Mwangi Kuria & 165 others v Attorney General & another [2016] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 May 2016
LNLINNET NDOLO
524 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court deleted an interest order against an employer because the employees' own delay in tabulating the award caused the payment deadline to be missed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by Linnet Ndolo, Judge, on 27th May 2016, arose from an application by the Respondent dated 3rd December 2014 seeking review of the order on payment of interest contained in the Court's award of 30th July 2014. The original award had directed that the award amounts, to be tabulated by counsel and paid within 60 days, would attract interest at court rates. The tabulation was never agreed: the Respondent forwarded its tabulation to the Claimants' advocates by letter dated 12th September 2014, but the Claimants' counsel, having indicated instructions to appeal, did not comment on it. The Respondent, through the affidavit of Eng. Daniel Barasa, argued that it was prejudicial for the decretal sum to continue accruing interest through no fault of its own. The Court identified its review jurisdiction in Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 32 of the Procedure Rules, which permits review on grounds including discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, breach of written law, need for clarification, or any other sufficient reason. The Court found that the interest order was premised on tabulation and payment within sixty days, that this deadline was not observed, and that the delay was occasioned by the Claimants without good cause. Holding that a party cannot benefit from their own malfeasance, the Court found sufficient reason to review the award and deleted order (e) in its entirety. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court should review its order that the award amount attract interest at court rates

Holding

Yes. The interest order was premised on payment within 60 days of a tabulated award; the tabulation and payment deadline were not met due to the Claimants' own delay, so it would be prejudicial to the Respondent to keep accruing interest.

Reasoning

The court held that the interest order was made in the context that the amounts payable would be tabulated and paid within sixty days. That deadline was not observed, and the record showed the delay was occasioned by the Claimants without good cause. Since a party cannot benefit from their own malfeasance, the court found sufficient reason under Rule 32 to review the award and deleted order (e) in its entirety.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot benefit from their own malfeasance; where delay in tabulating the decretal sum is occasioned by the claimants, interest should not continue to run against the respondent.
  • The ELRC's power to review its own decisions is conferred by Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 32 of the Procedure Rules.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Review of the award delivered on 30th July 2014 by deleting order (e) in its entirety (the order on payment of interest)
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure RulesRule 32(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 32 of the Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Mwangi Kuria & 165 others v Attorney General & another [2016] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1839/eng@2016-05-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.