AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2022] KEELRC 4162 (KLR)
Kiplagat v County Sec. Head of County Public Service Of Uasin Gishu & 3 others (Cause 145 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4162 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret (Abuodha Nelson Jorum J) on a Notice of Motion dated September 4, 2021 in which the claimant, a former employee of Uasin Gishu County Government, sought a stay of execution of the court's ruling of August 24, 2020, a review of that ruling to set aside or vary the order that she pay the respondents costs of Ksh 77,500, an order for set-off of those costs against the party and party costs of Ksh 318,772 taxed in her favour on May 24, 2019, interest at commercial rates on withheld salary of Ksh 854,700, and a notice to show cause to the county secretary. The background was that the claimant had obtained judgment on November 12, 2018 directing payment of her dues and salaries with interest at commercial rates, but a subsequent ruling (Mbaru J) dismissed her tabulation of dues, holding that the unpaid salaries had been remitted before judgment and that seeking payment again would amount to unjust enrichment, and ordered her to pay costs of Ksh 77,500 within thirty days, failing which the sums would be deducted from her monthly salary. The respondent informed the court, without contradiction by the claimant, that the costs had already been deducted from her salary. The court held that review requires discovery of new and material facts not discoverable with due diligence and that a stay can only issue where execution has not taken place. Having been overtaken by events, the application was dismissed with costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether review and stay orders were available in the circumstances
Holding
The application was dismissed because the costs had already been deducted from the claimant's salary, rendering the stay and review orders moot, and no new and material facts were shown to warrant review.
Reasoning
The court noted that review requires discovery of new and material facts not discoverable with due diligence, and stay of execution is only available where execution has not occurred. The respondent had already recovered the Ksh 77,500 costs from the claimant's salary, a fact not disputed by the claimant. Accordingly, the relief sought had been overtaken by events and could not be granted.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- An order for review can only be granted upon discovery of new and material facts which the applicant could not, after exercise of due diligence, have found.
- An order for stay of execution can only be made where execution has not taken place.
- A party cannot seek to be paid twice what has already been paid, as that would amount to unjust enrichment.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated September 4, 2021 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC; review of its own ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiplagat v County Sec. Head of County Public Service Of Uasin Gishu & 3 others (Cause 145 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4162/eng@2022-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.