Rufus Njuguna & 66 others v Attorney General & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to change a salary-arrears ruling, saying the worker's complaints belonged in an appeal, not a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold for review under Rule 33 of the ELRC Rules
The application failed; the alleged omissions were not errors apparent on the face of the record because the Kshs.50,000 award was not part of the items remitted for computation, and interest was untouched by the impugned judgment
Rule 33 permits review for discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, clarification, or other sufficient reason. The court perused the impugned judgment and the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments and found the Kshs.50,000 general damages formed part of the High Court preliminary decree of 7.11.2007, not the items referred back for computation. The applicant actually received more than the preliminary decree awarded, computing arrears over 12 years rather than 3.
Distinction between review and appeal
Complaints about computation methodology and alleged omission of allowances go to the merits and are appealable, not reviewable
The applicant contended that salary was computed on civil service payslips and that house, medical and miscellaneous allowances were omitted. The court held these attack the merits of the judgment rather than disclose clerical or patent error, and must be pursued on appeal. Similarly, interest was never interfered with and forms part of the preliminary decree.
Legal principles established
#- Contentions that question the merits of a judgment rather than mere errors apparent on the record belong to an appeal, not a review
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th June 2018 is dismissed with no costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent review jurisdiction under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules over its own judgment of 27 October 2017
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rufus Njuguna & 66 others v Attorney General & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELRC Cause (review application in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2010 context; Notice of Motion dated 7.6.2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/609/eng@2018-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.