Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Empire Glass Industries Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E029 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2095 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 judgment of 11.11.2024 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, based on the alleged discrepancy between 37 and 34 recruited employees
- 2.Whether alleged coercion of employees to join the union amounts to discovery of new and important matter justifying review
- 3.Whether the application was brought within a reasonable time given the over five months delay
- 4.Whether costs should follow the event given the continuing industrial relationship
Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record
The alleged discrepancy (37 vs 34 recruited employees) was not an error apparent on the face of the judgment because the judgment was founded on a finding of 29 out of 49 employees constituting a simple majority
The applicant's ground relied on figures that the judgment never used. The judgment expressly found that the Claimant recruited 29 out of 49 employees and was therefore entitled to recognition under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. A review cannot be founded on a mischaracterisation of the judgment's actual finding, rendering the ground misleading or misconceived.
Discovery of new and important matter
The allegation that the claimant was coercing employees to join the union did not constitute discovery of new evidence relevant to the judgment, as it suggested a new cause of action unrelated to the finding on recognition
The court found the ground strange because the alleged coercion, even if true, would introduce a fresh cause of action with no bearing on the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to recognition. Review is not a vehicle for raising new and unrelated complaints that were not germane to the matters adjudicated in the judgment.
Reasonable time and delay
The application filed over five months after the judgment was not brought in reasonable time and the unexplained delay justified refusal
Judgment was delivered on 07.11.2024 and the application was filed on 11.04.2025, a delay exceeding five months. No explanation for the delay was offered by the applicant. The court treated the unexplained inordinate delay as an independent ground for declining the application, alongside the failure to establish grounds for review.
Legal principles established
#- A ground that misstates the figures actually found in a judgment does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review
- An application for review must be brought within a reasonable time and unexplained delay weighs against granting it
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11.04.2025 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
- Sections 3 and 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, rule 73(2) and 74(1)(a) and (b) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, and Order 22 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of Justice Maureen Onyango of 11.11.2024 and the decree thereof
The court found the grounds for review misconceived and the delay of over five months unexplained
Setting aside, review, variation or vacation of the judgment and/or decree of 11.11.2024
The alleged numerical discrepancy was not an error apparent on the face of the judgment, as the judgment was based on a finding of 29 out of 49 employees
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.
It is obvious that such ground as urged does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the judgment herein
The delay operates as an impetus of declining to grant the application.
In conclusion the application for review dated 11.04.2025 is hereby determined with orders: a. The application is dismissed. b. Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternately refers to the applicant as 'Respondent (applicant)' and the claimant as 'Claimant/respondent', and the motion seeks both stay of execution and review of a judgment described as delivered on 11.11.2024 in the motion but 07.11.2024 in the court's findings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Empire Glass Industries Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E029 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2095 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 11.04.2025 (application within suit before the Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2095/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.