Maingi v Milicons Limited (Civil Appeal E043 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grounds raised disclosed a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason for review
The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, no clarification needed and no sufficient reason; the issues raised fall outside the review jurisdiction
The Court reviewed rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 and authorities on 'sufficient reason', holding that such reason must be analogous to discovery of new evidence or error on the face of the record. The applicant's complaints about service pay, interest, deductions, quantum of damages and arithmetic went to the trial court's discretion and could only be challenged on appeal, not through review.
Whether review can be used to challenge discretionary rulings on costs and damages
Discretionary matters such as each party bearing their own costs and quantum of damages can only be challenged on appeal, not by review
The Court held that the order that each party bear their own costs was a discretionary one, wrongly exercised or not, challengeable only on appeal. Similarly, the claim for damages for unfair termination went to the discretion of the court and could only be challenged on appeal if improperly exercised. Invoking review on such matters would amount to the court sitting on appeal on its own decision.
Legal principles established
#- Sufficient reason for review must be analogous or ejusdem generis to discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record
- A court cannot invoke review to sit on appeal over its own decision; matters of judicial discretion are only challengeable on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review dated 6th July 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12(3)(v) & (vi) and 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011; rules 17(1) and 33(1)(b)(c) & (d) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maingi v Milicons Limited (Civil Appeal E043 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3138/eng@2023-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.