Murbe v Libya Oil Kenya Ltd (Cause 288 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 271 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a worker's attempt to revive rejected claims through review, confirming that losing parties must appeal, not re-argue.
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 a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the Ruling of 13 June 2024 warranting review
- 2.Whether the Motion dated 21 June 2024 is an abuse of the court process
Key legal issues
#Scope of the review jurisdiction
Review lies only for self-evident errors apparent on the face of the record, not for erroneous legal conclusions or differences of judicial view
Relying on National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau, the Court restated that review is confined to correcting apparent errors or omissions that are self-evident. It is not enough that another judge could take a different view, or that the court misconstrued a statute. The Claimant identified no such error in the Ruling of 13 June 2024.
Abuse of court process by re-litigating rejected grounds
A Motion raising the same grounds already rejected by the Court, seeking the same reliefs, is an abuse of process
The proposed amendments were the exact reliefs earlier declined. The Court found the Claimant was attempting to circumvent the earlier ruling before a differently constituted bench rather than appealing. Such use of the review process constitutes an abuse and the Motion was dismissed with costs.
Limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act
Amendments introducing new causes of action accruing outside the 3-year limitation window under section 90 of the Employment Act cannot be permitted
The Court reiterated its earlier reasoning that the proposed reliefs concerned events of 2016 and 2017, long before the suit, and were fresh claims outside the prescribed 3-year period. Permitting them would be farcical, and the claims sought now relate to breaches accruing over six years ago.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted to correct an apparent error or omission that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument; disagreement with the court's view or an erroneous legal conclusion is not a ground for review
- A party cannot use a review application to achieve before a differently constituted court what it already failed to achieve; the remedy is an appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 21 June 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own ruling (rule-based review of interlocutory decision)
Relief refused
#Review of the Ruling delivered on 13 June 2024
No mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; the Motion sought to re-litigate grounds already rejected and was an abuse of process
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Respondent
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.
A review may be granted whenever the Court considers it necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the Court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established.
Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.
He is trying to achieve what he failed to achieve before this Court, difierently constituted. His option lay in an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Motion dated 21 June 2024 is devoid of merit and an abuse of the court process. It is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Cause number and full party names are not stated in the judgment text provided; the Respondent is referred to only as 'the Respondent'
Judgment text contains apparent typographical errors ('suficient', 'difierently', 'efiects')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murbe v Libya Oil Kenya Ltd (Cause 288 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Cause number omitted). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/271/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.