James Kipchirchir Sambu v Patriotic Guards Ltd [2016] KEELRC 18 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed Periotic Guards' attempt to change appeal conditions because it raised the wrong arguments through the wrong legal door.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether grounds for review or variation of the court's orders and ruling of 31st October 2016 (and orders of 20th January 2016 and 13th October 2016) under Rule 33 of the Court Rules were made out
- 2.Whether the respondent's offer of alternative securities (logbooks and landed securities) in place of a cash deposit of the decretal amount should be accepted
Key legal issues
#Whether the review application met the threshold under Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules
It did not; no error apparent on the face of the record or mistake on the orders made was cited
The court had already dealt with stay of execution and set out the conditions, including a deposit of the decretal sum. Rule 33 requires an error apparent on the face of the record, and the cited authorities confirm that such error must be evident without elaborate argument. The respondent's grievances about the mode of security were matters for the original application, not review.
Whether the application was an abuse of court process
Yes; it was a device to stall orders already issued by the court
The court had rendered itself in earlier rulings and orders. Filing a review without invoking Rule 33 properly, and without good grounds, sought to have the court go back on its own orders without due course, effectively sitting on appeal over its own decisions, which the court held to be an abuse of process overtaken by events.
Legal principles established
#- Review is available only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, evident without elaborate argument
- Inviting a court to revisit its own orders without good grounds amounts to asking it to sit on appeal over its own decision and an abuse of process
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21st October 2016 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Rule 33
Relief refused
#Review and/or variation of the court orders and ruling of 31st October 2016 and the condition to deposit the decretal amount in a joint interest-earning account
No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated under Rule 33; the matters raised should have been addressed in the earlier application
Substitution of the cash deposit with alternative securities (logbooks and landed property)
The issues as to the mode of security should have been raised in the application leading to the orders of 20th January 2016
Costs
The application dated 21st October, 2016 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
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.
An error or omission must be by itself be evident and should not require an elaborate argument.
I therefore find no good grounds that merit a review or variation of the orders of the court.
The application dated 21st October, 2016 lack merit, this is an abuse of court process and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Kipchirchir Sambu v Patriotic Guards Ltd [2016] KEELRC 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Application and Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2016 (in ELRC cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/18/eng@2016-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.