Shalimar Fresh Limitted v Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 346 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to review its earlier judgment because no valid review grounds were pleaded, instead sending the house allowance and transport dispute to a Ministry of Labour-facilitated meeting within 60 days.
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 application dated 15th August 2024 qualifies as a review of the court's judgment of 9th July 2024
- 2.Whether the applicants identified valid grounds for review (error on the record, new evidence, or sufficient cause)
- 3.How the unresolved dispute over house allowance and transport payments should be concluded
Key legal issues
#Whether the application met the threshold for review
It did not; the application was not in the nature of a review because no review grounds were identified.
The court examined the application dated 15th August 2024 seeking to revisit the judgment of 9th July 2024. Under the Employment and Labour Relations Court rules, review lies only on an error on the record, new evidence, or sufficient cause. The applicants, despite arguing that the strike notice would prejudice them and seeking a Ministry of Labour-chaired consultative meeting, never pleaded any of the recognised grounds for review. The application therefore failed as a review strictly so called.
Resolution of the unresolved dispute over house allowance and transport
The dispute, remaining unresolved after failed negotiations and conciliation, should be concluded through a consultative meeting chaired by the Ministry of Labour headquarters.
The judgment of 9th July 2024 had directed the parties to resolve the transport and house allowance issues through their own negotiations as per the CBA. Attempts to agree failed and a certificate of disagreement was signed on 3rd October 2024. The prior conciliation process had also not worked. The court found it imprudent to allow a strike while the matter was unresolved and considered it prudent to bring the matter to closure through a facilitated consultative process, with a report to be adopted by the court.
Legal principles established
#- Review under the Employment and Labour Relations Court rules is viable only on the grounds of an error on the record, new evidence, or sufficient cause, and the applicant must plead the grounds.
Court orders
#- 1.The parties to proceed and resolve the dispute through a consultative meeting chaired by the Ministry of Labour headquarters
- 2.The consultative process to be done within 60 days and a report submitted before court for adoption
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 under its rules (employment and labour relations jurisdiction); no specific constitutional provision invoked
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment of 9th July 2024
The applicants failed to point out the grounds upon which they sought a review under the Employment and Labour Relations Court rules
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment.
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.
The application before me is not however in a nature of what the court can call a review because review under the Employment and labour relations court rules is viable due to an error on the record, due to new evidence coming up or for suficient cause.
In order to bring the matter to a closure, I will direct that the parties proceed and resolve the dispute through a consultative meeting chaired by the Ministry of Labour headquarters.
This should be done within 60 days and a report submitted before court for adoption.
It would also be imprudent to decide that the strike continues since the parties have not resolved the matter.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the review application as being on the ground that the strike notice would prejudice the claimants, which does not match the applicants' pleaded grounds of illegality of the strike notice and non-compliance with the Recognition Agreement's 21-day notice requirement.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shalimar Fresh Limitted v Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 346 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 15th August 2024 (Notice of Motion) in the matter of the judgment of 9th July 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/346/eng@2025-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.