Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 1666 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 1048 (KLR)

Maurice Ndiku Kilonzo v Dawa Limited [2018] KEELRC 1048 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
827 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court dealt with two applications: the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 28/3/2018 seeking stay of execution of warrants of attachment issued to the 2nd Respondent Auctioneers and review/clarification of the Court's rulings of 21.2.2017 and 13.12.2017; and the Claimant's Preliminary Objection contending that the Court, having rendered a final judgment and decree, was functus officio and that the application was res judicata, having been determined in a Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2016. The Respondent argued it had paid the Claimant Kshs.146,405/= before the consent was recorded and before the Claimant's determination, so that the decree should reflect only the Kshs.258,000/= awarded for the contested amount plus taxed costs of 115,885/=, all of which it claimed to have paid. The Claimant maintained the issues were settled by the ruling of 13.12.2017, which fixed the decretal sum at 404,405/= plus costs, comprising six months' salary of 258,000/= and 146,505/= per the parties' consent. The Court held it had already determined the issues, that it was functus officio with nothing left to review or clarify, and that it could not undo what the parties had consented to. It restated the judgment as 404,045/= plus costs. Interim injunction orders granted on 22.3.2018 pending the application lapsed with its dismissal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court is functus officio after delivering final judgment and decree

Holding

The Court held it is functus officio and has nothing further to review or clarify

Reasoning

The Court had rendered a final judgment on 17.6.2015 and a ruling on 13.12.2017 fixing the decretal sum at 404,405/= plus costs, following a prior review application dated 25/7/2016. The issues now raised, including the alleged pre-consent payment of Kshs.146,405/=, had already been addressed. Having recorded the figure of 404,405/= as per the parties' consent, the Court could not undo what the parties agreed to.

p. 2
02

Whether the consented decretal figure could be varied to account for an alleged prior payment

Holding

The Court could not determine whether the consented 146,505/= had been previously paid; parties wishing to change the consent should have done so themselves

Reasoning

The judgment of 17.6.2015 awarded six months' salary of 258,000/= plus 146,505/= per the parties' consent. The Court recorded the total of 404,405/= as per the consent. Since the parties agreed on this figure, the Court held it was not its duty to undo the consent, and if parties wished to reduce it by prior payments they would have done so at the time of recording the consent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties have consented to a figure in court, the court will not reopen or undo the consent
  • A court that has rendered a final judgment and decree becomes functus officio and cannot review or clarify its ruling in the absence of jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court restated the judgment as being Kshs.404,045 plus costs
  2. 2.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 22.3.2018 and the Claimant's Preliminary Objection were effectively disposed of, the Court holding it is functus officio with nothing to review or clarify

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Rules 2016Rules 17 and 33(1)(c)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act 2011 and Rules 17 and 33(1)(c) of the Employment and Labour Relations Rules 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maurice Ndiku Kilonzo v Dawa Limited [2018] KEELRC 1048 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 1666 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1048/eng@2018-09-25

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