Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the provided extract· [2018] KEELC 3137 (KLR)

Margaret Wakuru Nyutho v Joseph Kiarie Njoroge & 3 others [2018] KEELC 3137 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (inferred from 'Presiding Judge' designation; not stated in extract)
12 April 2018
MGMary M. GitumbiSOSamson Okongo
114 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court threw out a bid to revisit an earlier ruling because the applicants raised nothing new and must pay costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The extract provided contains only the concluding orders of the judgment. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants had moved the court by a Notice of Motion dated 11/3/2015 seeking review of the ruling delivered on 30/5/2014. Lady Justice Mary M. Gitumbi dismissed the application with costs, holding that the review sought was unfounded. She reasoned that the ruling of 30/5/2014 had already made sufficient reference to the Defendants' Grounds of Opposition dated 28/6/2013 and their Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 1/7/2013, and that no new matter had been raised in the review application to justify disturbing the earlier ruling. The judgment was signed and dated at Nairobi on 12 April 2018 and delivered on 19 April 2018 by Honourable Mr. Justice Samson Okongo, Presiding Judge, in the presence of advocates for the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the court clerk. Because only the disposition portion of the judgment was supplied, the underlying claim, the parties' names, the evidence and the full reasoning leading to the ruling of 30/5/2014 cannot be summarised from this extract.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the review application disclosed any new matter warranting review of the ruling of 30/5/2014

Holding

The review application was unfounded because no new matter had been raised and the grounds had already been sufficiently considered in the ruling of 30/5/2014

Reasoning

The court found that the ruling of 30/5/2014 had already made sufficient reference to the Defendants' Grounds of Opposition dated 28/6/2013 and Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 1/7/2013. Since no new matter was raised in the review application, there was no basis to disturb the earlier ruling, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The 2nd and 3rd Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 11/3/2015 is dismissed with costs
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated in the provided extract

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Margaret Wakuru Nyutho v Joseph Kiarie Njoroge & 3 others [2018] KEELC 3137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the provided extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3137/eng@2018-04-19

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.