Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 1515 of 2017· [2020] KEELRC 593 (KLR)

Henry Owino Obonyo & another v Kenya Airways Limited [2020] KEELRC 593 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 July 2020
1,732 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant (the employer, previously ordered to reinstate the 2nd Claimant and pay compensation for unfair termination by judgment of 9/10/2019) applied on 24/1/2020 for review of that judgment and of a Ruling of 16/12/2019 on conditions for stay, and for stay of execution, refund of earnings paid to the 2nd Respondent, a finding of perjury and committal to civil jail. It alleged that on 10/12/2019 it discovered new and important evidence that the 2nd Claimant had been employed by the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority and Jubba Airways after termination, and had therefore misled the Court when he testified that he was unable to secure alternative employment. The Claimants opposed, contending that the evidence was within the Applicant's knowledge at trial, that a pending appeal (a Notice of Appeal had been filed and the Court of Appeal was seized of the matter) precluded review, and that there was inordinate unexplained delay. Only the Claimants filed submissions. The court (Wasilwa J) accepted that discovery of new and important evidence is a valid ground for review under the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016, but held that the Applicant had to show the judgment would have been different had the evidence been available. In fact, the 2nd Claimant had testified at trial that he had secured and lost two short-term positions after his termination was discovered, so the judgment was rendered with knowledge of that information. Nothing new warranted review; the application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether new and important evidence warranted review

Holding

No; the evidence relied on was already before the Court during the hearing and formed part of the basis of the judgment

Reasoning

The Applicant alleged it discovered new evidence that the 2nd Claimant had been employed by the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority and Jubba Airways after termination. However, the 2nd Claimant had testified at trial that he had attempted to obtain alternative employment with two organisations and was terminated once his prior termination by the Applicant was discovered. The judgment was therefore made with full knowledge of this information, and nothing new had been placed before the Court to warrant review.

p. 3
02

Threshold for review under the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016

Holding

Discovery of new and important evidence is a good ground for review, but the Applicant failed to establish the required nexus between the evidence and the judgment

Reasoning

The court acknowledged that discovery of new and important matter is a recognised ground for review under the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016. The burden, however, rests on the Applicant to show that the judgment was reached only because the evidence was unavailable at trial. Since the information about the 2nd Claimant's subsequent short-term engagements was adduced at trial, that burden was not discharged and the application failed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking review must establish that it was only on the basis of non-availability of the new evidence that the court reached the judgment it did
  • Evidence already adduced at trial cannot constitute new and important matter for review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondents in this application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016Not specified (ground for review)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sadar Mohamed vs. Charan Singh
    [1959] EA 793
  • Wangechi Kimita vs. Wakibiru
    [1985] eKLR
  • Muyodi vs. Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation & Another
    [2006] 1 EA 243
  • James Mulinge vs. Freight Wings Limited & 3 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Brinks Mat Limited vs. Elcombe
    [1988] 3 All ER 188
  • Standard Limited vs. Alfred Mincha Ndubi
    [2018] eKLR
  • Serephen Nyasani Menge vs. Rispah Onsase
    [2018] eKLR
  • The Executive Committee Chelimo Plot Owners Welfare Group & 288 Others vs. Joel Langat & Others
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Review jurisdiction under the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Henry Owino Obonyo & another v Kenya Airways Limited [2020] KEELRC 593 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 1515 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/593/eng@2020-07-30

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