Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Met-Al Masters Limited (Cause E627 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1660 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a bid to review a judgment, confirming that disagreement with a ruling's reasoning is grounds for appeal, not 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 new or fresh evidence which could not with due diligence be obtained at the hearing had been adduced to warrant review
- 2.Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of 19.12.2024
- 3.Whether the application met the threshold for review, or whether it was an appeal disguised as review
- 4.Whether the inordinate delay and alleged non-disclosure disentitled the claimant to the discretionary relief of review
Key legal issues
#Whether the Safaricom/M-pesa statements constituted new evidence justifying review
No; the claimants knew of the M-pesa payments all along and could have produced the evidence at the hearing, and it would not have changed the finding that the term contracts lapsed
The court held that for review on account of new evidence, the applicant must show the evidence could not with due diligence have been obtained at the hearing. Here the grievants knew they had been paid by M-pesa after the term contracts lapsed, so nothing prevented production of the evidence at the hearing. Further, the court doubted the evidence would have altered the finding that the fixed-term contracts, having breaks, caused the claims to collapse.
Whether the application disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record
No; the applicant was essentially asking the court to change its reasoning, which amounts to dissatisfaction warranting appeal, not review
The court considered that beneath the allegation of fresh evidence, the applicant sought a change in the reasoning and findings in the judgment. Such dissatisfaction with the manner and reasons of the findings is a matter for appeal, not review. The court also noted the judgment was delivered on documents by consent, so blurred gaps may have existed, but parties are bound by their consent.
Whether the delay and alleged non-disclosure defeated the application
The application was amenable to dismissal as no known ground for review was established
The respondent opposed the application as fatally defective for inordinate and unexplained delay of over three months after judgment, and for material non-disclosure, asserting some grievants remained in active employment. The claimant's further affidavit explained the delay by loss of income, relocation to rural homes and the Christmas holidays. The court upheld the respondent's case that no known ground for review had been established.
Legal principles established
#- Review is not a remedy for a party merely dissatisfied with the reasoning in a judgment; such dissatisfaction is a ground for appeal, not review
- Parties are bound by their consent to have a suit determined on documents, and cannot seek review on the basis of evidentiary gaps arising from that mode of determination
Court orders
#- 1.The review application dated 21.02.2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2016
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment delivered on 19.12.2024
No known ground for review was established; the alleged fresh evidence was known all along and would not have changed the finding, and the applicant was essentially seeking to re-litigate the reasoning, which is a matter for appeal
Service gratuity and leave allowance as per the memorandum of claim
These were consequential on the review sought; the review having failed, the prayers in the memorandum of claim could not be granted
Costs of the application against the respondent
The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the application
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.
There is no shown new or fresh evidence which with due diligence could not be provided at the hearing.
It is that such would be a dissatisfaction to justify an appeal and not a review.
In any event, the parties are bound by their consent.
In conclusion the application is hereby dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs of the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Met-Al Masters Limited (Cause E627 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1660 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1660/eng@2025-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.