Godwin Barasa Barechi v Kenya Trade Network Agency [2020] KEELRC 1355 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to review its own ruling on suspended allowances, confirming that reviews require a clear, self-evident error, not disagreement.
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 is an error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason to warrant review of the ruling of 5th February 2019
- 2.Whether a temporary stay of execution of the ruling should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed to justify review
No error was found; the ruling was based on the Applicant's own HR Manual
The court reviewed the ruling it had granted and found that it was grounded on the Applicant's own Human Resource Manual. The Applicant's contention that Clause 11.22.2 read with section 71 of the Public Service Commission Act limited allowances during suspension did not reveal any self-evident error on the record. Seeking such a re-determination would amount to asking the court to sit on appeal over its own judgment.
Functus officio and jurisdiction to review
The Respondent argued the court was functus officio; the court did not expressly rule on this but found no review grounds
The Petitioner submitted the court had become functus officio after delivering the ruling and could not sit on appeal over its own judgment. The court did not need to resolve this jurisdictional argument, finding instead that the substantive review grounds failed because the ruling rested on the Applicant's own HR Manual and no error on the record was demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28th March 2019 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the Petition
- 3.The main Petition to proceed accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction under Rule 33(1)(b) and (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling of 5th February 2019
The court found no error on the record warranting review and found the application without merit
Review and variation of the ruling of 5th February 2019
No error apparent on the face of the record; the ruling was based on the Applicant's own HR Manual
Costs
Costs in the Petition.
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.
I therefore find the application without merit and I dismiss it accordingly.
I have considered the ruling granted by this Court which this Court granted based on the Applicants own Human Resource Manual. I do not find any error on the record as indicated.
Costs in the Petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number of the petition/application is not stated in the judgment text supplied
The judgment inconsistently labels the parties: the applicant is the Respondent in the main petition while the Petitioner is the Respondent to the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godwin Barasa Barechi v Kenya Trade Network Agency [2020] KEELRC 1355 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1355/eng@2020-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.