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 the judgment (application dated 19th May 2022)· [2022] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Migotiyo Plantations Limited (Cause 976 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 July 2022
JGJacob Gakeri
3,654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employer's attempt to reduce a compensation payout after losing an employment case failed because it sat on the evidence for years before raising it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2022 in which the Respondent/Applicant sought review of the court's judgment of 15th December 2021, which had found the summary dismissal of employees on 21st May 2016 unfair and awarded two months' salary compensation across the board. The applicant asked the court to remove from the tabulation of damages: 19 names repeated erroneously, 8 claimants allegedly in active employment, 8 who had allegedly been paid final dues in July 2016 upon unrelated terminations, and 4 (Risper, Rebecca, Jane and Seline) who allegedly resigned voluntarily in 2014. The Claimant/Respondent opposed, arguing there was no error apparent on the face of the record, the application sought to reopen a concluded matter, and the payment documents were being furnished for the first time. The court framed three issues: whether a case for review was established, who was eligible for compensation, and costs. Applying Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, the court found that annexture TK3 containing the claimants' names had been on the record since 2016 and was never contested; the respondent had the information about payments and prior terminations for five years but never raised it before judgment; and verification showed at least one contested claimant (Odinga Risper Achieng) was in fact dismissed on 21st May 2016. No error apparent on the face of the record was established. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a ground for review under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Holding

No case for review was established; there was no discovery of new matter, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no need for clarification warranting review

Reasoning

The applicant sought review without specifying a ground, contending the number of employees entitled to compensation needed clarification. The court found the contested names appeared in annexture TK3, which was on the record from the filing of the suit and was never contested by the respondent. Information about payments and prior terminations was in the respondent's possession for five years before judgment. One of the named employees (Odinga Risper Achieng) was verifiably dismissed on 21st May 2016, undermining the respondent's list.

p. 7
02

Who is eligible for the 2 months salary compensation awarded in the judgment of 15th December 2021

Holding

All names in the TK3 list are eligible for the 2 months compensation

Reasoning

The court found that TK3 formed part of the record, was never scrutinized or challenged by any party, and the number of dismissals was never a contested issue before judgment. The repeated names had already been mutually rectified by the parties. Having declined review, the court confirmed that every name on the list remained entitled to the compensation awarded.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination or a long process of reasoning
  • A party who possesses information relevant to the identity of claimants during the subsistence of a suit and fails to raise it cannot seek review of the judgment on that basis later
  • Where a party does not contest a list of claimants on the record before judgment, the court will not later fault that list on an application for review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 19th May 2022 is dismissed
  2. 2.Parties to bear own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 on review of judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Migotiyo Plantations Limited (Cause 976 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 19th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1358/eng@2022-07-12

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