Osiri v Onda Mechanical (EA) Limited & 2 others (Appeal E184 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1802 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to review a judgment just because submissions were overlooked, ruling submissions are not evidence and don't change outcomes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and/or sufficient reason justifying review of the judgment dated 24th November 2023, given that the applicants' submissions were on record but not considered
- 2.Whether the omission by the court to consider the applicants' submissions was fatal to the judgment and warranted its review
Key legal issues
#Grounds for review under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument, or for sufficient reason; a possibly different view on the same record is not a ground
The court relied on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau and Muyodi v ICDC, which distinguish a mere erroneous decision from an error apparent on the face of the record. An error that can be established only through long reasoning, or on which two opinions are conceivable, cannot ground review. The applicants' complaint - that their submissions were on the e-filing portal and delivered physically yet the judgment indicated none were filed - did not meet this threshold.
Whether failure to consider submissions warrants review
No, unless the submissions raise a fundamental principle of law which the court obviously ought to have considered; here the submissions merely echoed the pleadings and evidence
The court held that submissions are parties' parting shot and cannot substitute for pleadings and evidence. The applicants argued their submissions attacked the appeal as filed out of time, a jurisdictional issue. The court found nothing on record showing the applicants had earlier questioned the competence of the appeal, and that even if the submissions had been considered the outcome would not have differed since they repeated what was in the pleadings and evidence.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious on its face and admit of no two opinions
- Non-consideration of submissions is not fatal to a judgment unless the submissions raised a fundamental principle of law the court obviously ought to have considered
- Submissions do not constitute evidence and cannot determine a case one way or the other
Court orders
#- 1.The Application is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (review of its own judgment; underlying matter an appeal)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Articles 27(1), 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked by the applicants
Relief refused
#Review, variation and/or setting aside of the judgment dated 24th November 2023 and consideration of the applicants' submissions dated 15th September 2023
The omission to consider submissions was not fatal; the submissions echoed the pleadings and evidence and would not have changed the outcome
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Appellant/Respondent to the application
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Thus, an error apparent on the face of record must be one that is obvious to the eye, and it must be one which when looked at does not yield two results.
Submissions, we reiterate, do not constitute evidence at all. Indeed, there are many cases decided without hearing submissions but based only on evidence presented.
In the upshot, the Application lacks merit is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties in the conventional style; the applicants are identified only as the 1st and 2nd Respondents (advocates in the main appeal) while the opposing party is styled 'Appellant', which is anomalous for a first-instance review application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osiri v Onda Mechanical (EA) Limited & 2 others (Appeal E184 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (ELRC review application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1802/eng@2024-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.