Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

Allan Mwangi Muturi v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 March 2021
MMM. Mbaru
1,018 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to change a judgment salary figure because the documents used existed before the case was decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant filed a notice of application dated 25th August 2020 under Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 seeking review of a judgment delivered on 6th February 2020, in which his monthly salary was adopted at Ksh.548,541. He sought a correction to Ksh.615,968 - the salary he said was due at termination as evidenced by KRA returns - together with recalculation of the amounts payable and costs in the cause. The respondent opposed through grounds of objection, arguing the application failed to meet the conditions for review under Order 45 Rule 1 and that the salary figures were within the claimant's knowledge at the time of judgment. The court framed a single issue: whether it should allow a review of the judgment. Reviewing Rule 33(1), the court held that an applicant must demonstrate discovery of new and important matter not within his knowledge despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or any other sufficient reason. The documents relied upon - KRA returns and bank statements for 2013 - predated the filing of the claim on 13th March 2015 and were available to the claimant throughout the hearing; they were neither new matter nor evidence of error, since the judgment had merely adopted the salary figure the claimant himself pleaded. Applying Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board and Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Steel Structures Limited, the court held that 'sufficient reason' must be analogous to the enumerated grounds and that review cannot introduce new facts or a new cause of action. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should allow a review of the judgment under Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Holding

The application for review was dismissed as the claimant failed to establish discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or any other sufficient reason

Reasoning

The claimant pleaded and adopted the salary of Ksh.548,541 in his Memorandum of Claim filed on 13th March 2015, and the judgment directly adopted that figure. The KRA returns and bank statements attached to the application related to 2013, predated the suit, and were available to the claimant when his case was heard and judgment rendered. They were therefore not new matter discovered after judgment, and applying them at review stage would prejudice the respondent and allow re-litigation of a matter already adjudged.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review may be allowed on 'any other sufficient reason' only where the reason is analogous or ejusdem generis to the grounds stipulated in the review rule
  • Review cannot be used to introduce new facts or form a new cause of action after judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 25th August, 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Allan Mwangi Muturi v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1484/eng@2021-03-02

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