Shadrack Otuoma Khamla & 7 others v Aniket Enterprises Ltd [2018] KEELRC 472 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to reopen employment awards for two workers but gave all winning claimants their legal costs, showing review cannot substitute for appeal in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court could review its judgment to award the 2nd and 3rd Claimants terminal benefits
No - the application was dismissed as it lacked merit; the applicants could not re-open the litigation through the review jurisdiction where the Court had already given reasons for rejecting their claims.
The Court had denied the 2nd and 3rd Claimants relief because no pay or terminal records for them were produced at the hearing. Their assertion that records were filed by the Respondent amounted to a disagreement with the Court's evidential findings, which is a matter for appeal, not review. Further, their causes of action differed: they were deemed to have deserted work, so they bore the burden of leading adequate evidence to prove their claims.
Whether the order denying costs of the main Cause should be set aside
Yes - the Court confirmed the applicants' narration on the deadline for filing submissions falling on a public holiday was correct and set aside the order denying costs, awarding costs to the successful Claimants.
On the question of costs, the Court confirmed that the narration by the applicants was correct; costs should not have been denied on account of a deadline falling on a public holiday. The order denying costs was therefore set aside and costs awarded to the successful Claimants, even though the substantive review of the awards failed.
Legal principles established
#- An erroneous view of evidence or law is a ground of appeal, not a ground for review; review cannot be used to re-open litigation on points that should be pursued on appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28 September 2018 dismissed as regards the 2nd and 3rd Claimants, with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The order denying costs of the main Cause to the successful Claimants set aside and costs awarded to them
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shadrack Otuoma Khamla & 7 others v Aniket Enterprises Ltd [2018] KEELRC 472 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 872 of 2013 (Ruling No. 2). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/472/eng@2018-12-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.