Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Crom Impex (K) Limited (Cause 279 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 8 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employer lost its second attempt to overturn a union recognition judgment after the ELRC ruled that post-judgment employee resignations cannot justify review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Motion dated 13 May 2024 seeking review and setting aside of the decree satisfied the statutory threshold for review under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33(6)
- 2.Whether resignations from the Union occurring after judgment (including in 2024) constituted new evidence or changed circumstances warranting review
- 3.Whether the Union had a simple majority of unionisable employees warranting execution of a recognition agreement
Key legal issues
#Whether resignation notices constitute new evidence or changed circumstances warranting review of the decree
No. The judgment determined the facts presented at the material time; post-judgment resignations (including those of 2024) cannot support review, and the ground was duplicative of an earlier dismissed Motion.
The Respondent had previously filed a Motion dated 21 December 2023 seeking review on the basis of resignation notices, most of which were the same as those now relied on. It failed to explain why it did not disclose all resignation letters in the first application. The judgment was delivered after the purported resignations and decided the issues then before the Court. Intervening post-judgment facts, and mere change of circumstances inherent in the employment relationship, cannot be grounds for review. The Respondent also chose not to defend the Cause despite service.
Whether the Union met the simple majority threshold to warrant execution of a recognition agreement
The Court declined to revisit this; the judgment of 21 September 2023 determined the matter and the review jurisdiction was not available on the grounds advanced.
The Respondent sought a declaration that the Union lacked a simple majority of unionisable employees, resting on the resignations. Because the Court held that post-judgment resignations and changed circumstances cannot reopen the judgment, and that the earlier application on substantially the same material had been dismissed, the threshold question could not be relitigated through successive review applications.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not reopen a judgment and admit intervening facts arising post-judgment as a ground for review
- Change of circumstances is not a ground for review in the employment context
- Parties who litigate in instalments by bringing successive review applications on the same grounds abuse the process
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 13 May 2024 is 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 Act, section 16; Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Rule 33(6)
Relief refused
#Order that the decree issued on 3 October 2023 be varied, reviewed and set aside on the ground of new evidence
The Motion was vexatious and without merit; the Respondent had not explained non-disclosure of all resignation letters in its earlier application, the judgment postdated the purported resignations, and the Respondent was litigating in instalments
Declaration that the Claimant does not meet the statutory threshold of a simple majority of unionisable employees to warrant execution of a recognition agreement
Resignations post-judgment could not be admitted as intervening facts; change of circumstances is not a ground for review
Costs
The Motion dated 13 May 2024 is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the Union).
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.
It is not open to this Court to reopen the judgment and admit any intervening facts which arose postjudgment such as resignations in 2024.
change of circumstances cannot be a ground for a review of the judgment considering the dynamic nature of the employment arena wherein employers and employees separate and new ones are recruited
It has decided to litigate in instalments, leading to a waste of precious judicial time.
In light of the above, the Motion dated 13 May 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the Cause number, the neutral citation, or the full contents of prayer (i) of the Motion (elided in the judgment text)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Crom Impex (K) Limited (Cause 279 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 8 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 13 May 2024 (Cause judgment delivered 21 September 2023; decree issued 3 October 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/8/eng@2025-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.