David Mwangi Gioko & 43 others v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd [2018] KEELRC 537 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Award of 28th January 2014 remains unsatisfied
The Award was fully satisfied by payment of Kshs.41,152,605 in February 2014, undisputed by the Claimants at the time, and the Claimants told the Court of Appeal their cause of action was satisfied.
The Respondent transferred Kshs.41,152,605 to the Claimants' Advocates on 28th February 2014. There was no communication disputing the computation. When withdrawing their appeal, the Claimants stated the principal reason was that their cause of action had been satisfied by the Award. The total paid, about Kshs.45,382,030, matched the interim and final Awards. The Claim for Kshs.125,502,886 was at variance with what the Court granted and disproportionate.
Whether the Labour Officer's recommendations on arrears of salaries formed part of the decree
The Labour Officer's recommendation was never adopted as part of the Court's judgment; the Claimants were instead at liberty to file a fresh claim with their Trade Union.
The Court had directed the Provincial Labour Officer to investigate the bona fides of disputed Claimants and any arrears of salaries predating retirement. The Claimants mistakenly treated the resulting recommendation as part of the Court's decree. The Court instead reserved their right to bring a fresh Claim on the underlying CBA with the participation of the Trade Union which co-authored it.
Whether the Claimants met the threshold for review under Rule 33 of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
The Claimants did not show which of the Rule 33 grounds applied; their submission that Civil Procedure Rules on review do not apply to the E&LRC was incorrect.
Rule 33 requires discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason. The Claimants identified none. Their argument that the Respondent was impermissibly importing Civil Procedure Rules into the E&LRC was wrong, as the review rules in the E&LRC are quite similar to those under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal principles established
#- The final decree overrides all prior interim orders and adjudicatory processes culminating in it
- A recommendation of a Labour Officer not adopted as part of the Court's judgment cannot be treated as part of the decree
- Review in the E&LRC requires the applicant to establish a ground under Rule 33: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 2nd March 2018, filed by the Claimants on 5th March 2018, is rejected
- 2.No order on the costs
- 3.The file shall be marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction under Rule 33 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Mwangi Gioko & 43 others v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd [2018] KEELRC 537 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 1722 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/537/eng@2018-11-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.