Odera & 118 others v Homa Bay County Government & 2 others (Judicial Review E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 920 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu refused to review an earlier ruling because the applicant could not point to any obvious error in it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Ruling of 4th December, 2024 contained an error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent was demonstrated; the court had seen the computations and letters but found no agreement, and the amount claimed remained uncertain
The court applied the settled principle that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, patent and not establishable by long drawn reasoning. The applicant did not identify the specific part of the Ruling that was erroneous. The reconciled calculations should have been placed before Radido J in the earlier suit; seeking to rely on them now amounted to a second bite at the cherry, not a reviewable error.
Whether the failure to consider evidence relied upon by a party constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record
A failure to consider evidence is not automatically an error apparent; where the record shows the court considered the material and reached a possible view, review does not lie
Relying on Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and Paul Mwaniki v NHIF, the court held that an error not self-evident and requiring long debate cannot ground review, and a judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or because a different view could have been taken. The applicant failed to pinpoint the alleged error in the Ruling.
Whether the substantive suit and the application are res judicata Kisumu ELRC JR No. E044 of 2023
The finding of res judicata was maintained because the amounts claimed remained uncertain, the same as in the earlier suit dismissed by Radido J
The earlier Ruling struck out the Chamber Summons as res judicata Kisumu ELRC JR No. E044 of 2023 because in both matters the sum claimed was uncertain. Asked whether the amount was certain in Kisumu ELRC JR No. E032 of 2024, the court answered in the negative, explaining and affirming the res judicata finding.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is self-evident and does not require elaborate argument or long drawn reasoning to establish; a possible view taken by the court is not an error for purposes of review
- The court has statutory jurisdiction to review its judgments, awards, rulings or orders under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 5th December, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odera & 118 others v Homa Bay County Government & 2 others (Judicial Review E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 5th December, 2024 (arising from Kisumu ELRC JR No. E032 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/920/eng@2025-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.