Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. E033 of 2024 (application)

Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Mohammed t/a Rizwan Metal Craft (Civil Appeal (Application) E020 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1394 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
31 July 2025
AMA. K. Murgor
1,004 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to fast-track a union's appeal because the urgency had expired, confirming priority hearings require real, ongoing justification.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Mombasa on a Notice of Motion dated 16th February 2024 in which the Applicant union sought certification of its appeal (Civil Appeal No. E033 of 2024) as urgent and its hearing on a priority basis. The underlying dispute arose from a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 21st September 2023 concerning payment of service gratuity under a collective bargaining agreement, which the Applicant sought to challenge on appeal. The Applicant argued that because collective bargaining agreements run for two-year terms and the current term was due to expire, delay would cause irreparable loss to its members. At the hearing, however, counsel for both parties confirmed that the term covered by the current agreement had already expired. Applying its prior decision in Jared Okello vs Charles Otieno Opiyo & 3 Others, the court held that urgent certification entitles a matter to jump the queue over earlier-filed appeals and that a applicant must demonstrate that its matter deserves priority hearing, as a matter of fairness to all litigants and case management. Since the sole ground of urgency had lapsed, the court declined to exercise its discretion to fast-track the appeal, noting it was then hearing 2023 appeals and this 2024 appeal would likely be reached in the not-too-distant future. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs. The substantive appeal remains pending to be heard in the ordinary course.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application and the appeal should be certified urgent and set down for hearing on a priority basis

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal qualified for urgent certification and priority hearing

Holding

The application failed because the urgency premised on the imminent expiry of the collective bargaining agreement was overtaken by the agreement's expiry; the court declined to fast-track the appeal.

Reasoning

The applicant sought priority hearing because the CBA term was due to lapse. Counsel for both parties confirmed the term had already expired, removing the basis of urgency. The court, applying its earlier decision in Jared Okello, held that urgent certification means jumping the queue over earlier-filed matters, which requires demonstrated desert; the applicant could not show that. Noting that the court was then hearing 2023 appeals and this was a 2024 appeal, the court found the appeal would in any event be heard in the not-too-distant future.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Certification of a matter as urgent is a discretionary exercise that must be exercised on the basis of evidence and reason, not arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously.
  • Before a matter is allowed to jump the queue of pending cases, it must be shown to deserve priority hearing, consistent with fairness to all litigants and case-management considerations.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application seeking priority hearing of the appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AM
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rule 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Relief refused

#

Certification of the appeal as urgent and hearing on a priority basis

The two-year term of the collective bargaining agreement, the sole ground of urgency, had already lapsed, so the urgency was overtaken and the appeal could not jump the queue over earlier-filed appeals

p. 3

Costs

I make no orders as to costs.

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.

Certifying a matter urgent means that the same is to be set down for hearing and determination immediately. It gets priority over other matters, even though they were filed earlier in time and the parties have been waiting patiently for their turn.
p. 2Meaning and effect of urgent certification
Accordingly, I decline to exercise my discretion to order that the appeal be heard on a priority basis. This application fails and is hereby dismissed. I make no orders as to costs.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of urgency application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Paragraph numbering in the judgment is inconsistent (jumps from paragraph 2 to paragraph 13 before returning to 4)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Mohammed t/a Rizwan Metal Craft (Civil Appeal (Application) E020 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. E033 of 2024 (application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1394/eng@2025-07-31

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