Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Employers (Claimant) sought to review court orders dated April 24, 2013, requiring it to pay Ksh.239,394 to grievants Johnson Gichago and Florence Gichago. The union argued that Erick Ochieng, who represented them in the original case, lacked proper authorization under its constitution to act on their behalf, leading to an undefended hearing. The grievants had previously submitted conflicting letters (July 2011 and September 2011) denying claims against Vanguard Limited and requesting refunds, yet later filed an application for payment without disclosing these contradictions. The court dismissed the review application, ruling it failed to meet legal criteria for review under the Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010, as the union had been aware of the proceedings and did not intervene earlier.
Issues
- The court was required to determine if Erick Ochieng, the Assistant National Secretary General, had the legal authority to represent the Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Employers in the proceedings, as per the union's constitution and the Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010. The claimant argued that Ochieng's unauthorized representation rendered the previous orders invalid.
- The court had to evaluate if the claimant met the criteria for a review application under Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010. The claimant's failure to demonstrate grounds such as new evidence, procedural errors, or breaches of law led to the dismissal of the review application as non-compliant with the required legal standards.
- The court needed to assess if the grievants (Johnson and Florence Gichago) provided conflicting and misleading information regarding their entitlement to funds and union dues. Specifically, their initial request to return monies to the respondent and later claim for payment without disclosing these inconsistencies raised questions about their credibility and the validity of the previous orders.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application for review, finding that the applicant failed to meet the legal criteria for review under the Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010. The application was deemed unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, and the court ruled that the original orders of 24th April 2013 were not subject to review. Costs were awarded to the grievants/respondents.
Remedies
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the grievants/Respondents. The court found the application unsustainable due to non-compliance with legal and procedural requirements for review.
Monetary Damages
239394.00
Legal Principles
The court held that the application for review of the 24th April 2013 orders failed to meet the legal criteria outlined in Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010. Specifically, the claimant did not demonstrate grounds such as new evidence, errors on the record, or breach of law. The court emphasized that review applications must strictly comply with procedural rules and cannot function as appeals or retrials. The application was dismissed for not satisfying these judicial review principles.
Precedent Name
Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010
Cited Statute
Industrial Court (Practice) Rules 2010
Judge Name
D.K. Njagi Marete
Passage Text
- THAT one of the Grievant's known as JOHNSON GICHAGO had written to the Claimant on 6/7/2011 indicating that he and his wife FLORENCE GICHAGO did not have any claim of dues from the Respondent herein and therefore requested the claimant Union to return the monies back to the Respondent.
- THAT the person purporting to represent the Claimant being Erick Maurice Ochieng had no authority to represent the Claimant as per the laid down provisions of the Claimant's Constitution and he did not represent the Claimant Union against the Grievants' claim thereby causing the said application to be heard undefended and determined without the Claimant putting forth its defence.
- This application is not sustainable for want of compliance with the legal and procedural aspects of the process for an application for review. It must be dismissed on this ground.