Cause 286 of 2016

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Cause 286 of 2016
Parties:	Igonyi & 66 others v Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd
Date Delivered:	30 Nov 2022
Case Class:
Court:	Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	S Radido
Citation:	Igonyi & 66 others v Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd (Cause 286 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR) (30 November 2022) (Ruling)
Advocates:	Ondabu & Co Advocates for Claimants, Nyachiro Nyagaka & Co Advocates for Respondent
Court Division:	Employment and Labour
County:	Kisumu
Advocates:	Ondabu & Co Advocates for Claimants, Nyachiro Nyagaka & Co Advocates for Respondent
Disclaimer:	The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

Igonyi & 66 others v Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd (Cause 286 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR) (30 November 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEELRC 13325 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu

Cause 286 of 2016

S Radido, J

November 30, 2022

Between

Alfred Oginga Igonyi

1^st Claimant

Arati Omwange

2^nd Claimant

Bonface Obiero

3^rd Claimant

Clement Ayienda

4^th Claimant

David Mosoba

5^th Claimant

Dismas Omwoyo

6^th Claimant

Evans Orangi

7^th Claimant

Francis Kebwage

8^th Claimant

Grace Nyaboke

9^th Claimant

Handson Oganga

10^th Claimant

Hellen Oyunge

11^th Claimant

Henry Ombogo

12^th Claimant

Ibrahim Ondara

13^th Claimant

Isac Osoro

14^th Claimant

James Onyambu

15^th Claimant

James Sibwoga

16^th Claimant

Jenepher Nyaberi

17^th Claimant

Janet Orina

18^th Claimant

Jerusa Onchari

19^th Claimant

Jowl Mochuma Okero

20^th Claimant

Joel Nyakora

21^st Claimant

John Bongoye

22^nd Claimant

John Nyaboga

23^rd Claimant

Joseph Ondari

24^th Claimant

Josephine Nyamori

25^th Claimant

Lucy Barongo

26^th Claimant

Marcella Machoma

27^th Claimant

Nathan Osoro

28^th Claimant

Peter Okwenda

29^th Claimant

Richard Obonyo

30^th Claimant

Richard Tani

31^st Claimant

Simion Oyongo

32^nd Claimant

Simon Mokaya

33^rd Claimant

Ziporah Matundra

34^th Claimant

Jane Nyambane

35^th Claimant

Amos Magembe

36^th Claimant

Elizabeth Moraa

37^th Claimant

Domnic Onyuoki

38^th Claimant

Evaline Oseko

39^th Claimant

Ibrahim Nyamgaresi

40^th Claimant

Juliana Orina

41^st Claimant

Rhoda Kwamboka

42^nd Claimant

Selina Nyabonyi

43^rd Claimant

Meshack Keinda Ondari

44^th Claimant

Nemwel Ogechi

45^th Claimant

James Nyabwanga

46^th Claimant

Rael Otweka

47^th Claimant

Laban Nyandege

48^th Claimant

Nelson Mogeni

49^th Claimant

Hannington Marube Akuna

50^th Claimant

Mishael Omweno

51^st Claimant

Penina Oseko

52^nd Claimant

Dishon Makori

53^rd Claimant

Gladys Miruka

54^th Claimant

Joseph Momanyi

55^th Claimant

Joyce Kerebi

56^th Claimant

Joyce Ogechi

57^th Claimant

Margaret Orina

58^th Claimant

Mary Maobe

59^th Claimant

Mary Mayaka

60^th Claimant

Ondieki Nyandiri

61^st Claimant

Elijah Kerongo

62^nd Claimant

Onchweri Oyaro

63^rd Claimant

Hesbon Onchari

64^th Claimant

Nathan Onyango

65^th Claimant

Nathan Onyango

66^th Claimant

Hezron Motaro Onwong’a

67^th Claimant

and

Ogembo Tea Factory Ltd

Respondent

Ruling

1.For the court’s attention is a motion dated June 29, 2022 by the claimants seeking orders:(1)That this honourable court be pleased to review, vary, or set aside part of its ruling delivered on February 16, 2022 denying the claimants interest on the sum of Kshs 18,672,257/- from the date of filing the claim until payment in full plus costs of the claim.(2)That this honourable court be pleased to award the claimants interest on the sum of Kshs 18,672,257/- at court rates from the date of filing the claim and costs of the claim to the claimants in tandem with the consent judgment recorded in court on October 22, 2010.(3)That costs of this application be in the cause.

2.The primary grounds in support of the motion were that the court did not award interest and costs to reflect the consent entered into by the parties on October 22, 2010, that the court only addressed its mind to the question of interest from March 30, 2020 and not from date of filing the cause, that the parties agreed to the payment of interest from the date of filing the cause in the consent of October 22, 2010, and that the failure to award the interest was an error apparent on the face of the record.

3.The respondent filed grounds of opposition on July 19, 2022.

4.In the grounds, it was asserted that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the motion being functus officio, the claimants had approached the court with unclean hands, the question of interest and costs could only be properly be taken on appeal and that because execution had been commenced, the motion was an abuse of the court process.

5.Pursuant to court directions, the claimants filed their submissions on the motion on November 25, 2022 (should have been filed and served by October 14, 2022). The respondent’s submissions were not on record by the agreed timeline.

6.The court has considered the record, motion, affidavits, and submissions and come to the view that the motion should be declined for the following reasons.

7.One, in the judgment delivered on July 9, 2019, the court did not award any interest.

8.Two, similarly in the same judgment, the court directed each party to bear own costs of the suit.

9.This court, therefore, could not award interest on the sums which had not been ascertained by the time of the judgment.

10.Three, the court had, in the aforesaid judgment, directed the parties to compute and agree on the sums owing, but the parties did not agree until March 30, 2020, when the claimants signified the acceptance of the offer by the respondent.

11.Four, the interest and costs awarded by consent in Kisii High Court Civil Case No 17 of 2007 were specific to the sum of Kshs 4,181,720/-.

12.Five, failure by a court to award interest and costs is not an error apparent on the face of the record but is rather a matter which should be taken on appeal.

13.Lastly, the motion must have been an afterthought since the claimants only filed it after commencing the execution process.

Conclusion

14.For the above reasons, the court finds no merit in the motion, and it is dismissed with costs.

DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022.RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor claimants Ondabu & Co AdvocatesFor Respondent Nyachiro Nyagaka & Co AdvocatesCourt Assistant Chrispo Aura

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Case Search

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options

Case Search

Cause 286 of 2016

Case Metadata

Related Cases Listing

Please enter advanced search options