David Okoth Olayo v Leah Malot [2017] KEELRC 1724 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to consider submissions is a ground for review
It is not, without more, a sufficient ground; the proper remedy is appeal against the judgment
The Court reasoned that a party who believes the court misapprehended facts or erred in law should appeal to the appropriate appellate court. The Respondent's submissions had in any event rotated on the question of whether she was the Claimant's employer, which the judgment addressed at length; disagreement with that finding was a matter for appeal to the Court of Appeal, not for review.
Whether the Rent Restriction Tribunal decree could be set off against this decree
No; the claim was not pleaded in the Response and statutory enforcement avenues exist for Tribunal decrees
The set-off issue was first raised only during the hearing of the Respondent's case and not in the Response filed on 1 October 2013. The Court noted statutory provisions exist for enforcement of Rent Restriction Tribunal orders and decrees, and the Respondent should pursue those. The only semblance of a counterclaim, failure to hand over tools of trade, was unproved as to value.
Legal principles established
#- The mere non-consideration of a party's written submissions is not, without more, a ground for review or setting aside of a judgment; errors of fact or law should be pursued on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 22 November 2016 dismissed with costs to the Claimant
- 2.The decretal sum deposited into Court to be released to the Claimant's advocate after expiry of 10 days unless the Respondent secures an appropriate stay from the Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment causes; review jurisdiction over its own judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Okoth Olayo v Leah Malot [2017] KEELRC 1724 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Cause No. 270 of 2013 (Ruling No. 2). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1724/eng@2017-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.