Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited (Cause 139 (N) of 2009) (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error or mistake apparent on the face of the record - non-consideration of final submissions
No error apparent: despite the Respondent's assertion that it filed submissions on 17th September 2012 with a receipt, no copy of the submissions is on the court file, so the position at judgment delivery still holds.
The applicant alleged the court overlooked its final submissions which challenged the computation of the award to Koyi. The court re-perused the file and found no copy of the submissions on record. Counsel for the respondent conceded she had borrowed and copied the Claimants' counsel's copy. The filing receipt could not substitute for submissions actually on the record. The alleged error therefore did not exist on the face of the record.
Disqualification of the Respondent's witness
The Respondent was not prevented from calling another witness; its counsel chose to close its case without calling any witness, so this ground cannot support review.
The court noted that the witness intended by the Respondent was disqualified because he had sat through the testimony of the Claimants' witness, but counsel Mr Okeche was not barred from calling any other witness or adducing other evidence. Counsel elected to close his case. The denial of opportunity alleged was therefore self-inflicted and not a ground for review.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for review founded on error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, the applicant bears the duty to demonstrate that error or mistake.
- Review cannot be used to introduce new evidence that was available or could have been produced during trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The Review Application is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 32(b) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 - review on account of error or mistake apparent on the face of the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited (Cause 139 (N) of 2009) (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Application for Review dated 30th July 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2014/9/eng@2014-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.