Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment

University of Nairobi v Sifuna (Appeal 22 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2698 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya (Appeals Division)
3 October 2025
AJAbuodha Nelson Jorum
244 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed a review application, confirming that disagreeing with a judgment means appealing to the Court of Appeal, not seeking review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, Appeals Division, at Nairobi, determines a review application dated 7th December 2023 brought under certificate of urgency by the respondent/applicant. The applicant sought review of the Court's judgment delivered on 29th September 2023, together with an order directing the appellant/respondent to pay the monies awarded by the trial court as per the decree and certificate of costs. The application was supported by the applicant's affidavit, in which he stated he was not satisfied with the judgment and that the Court had erred in failing to consider evidence that the appellant did not exhaust its internal dispute resolution mechanisms and failed to convene a disciplinary meeting on 7th October 1998. Abuodha Nelson Jorum, Presiding Judge-Appeals Division, held that the applicant's grievance amounted to dissatisfaction with the judgment; the correct avenue in such circumstances is an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not review. The Court found that the grounds relied upon did not fall within the purview of review and characterized the application as frivolous. The application was dismissed with costs on 3rd October 2025. No authorities were cited and no separate opinions were delivered.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application dated 7th December 2023 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 29th September 2023 discloses grounds within the purview of review
  2. 2.What the correct avenue is for a party dissatisfied with the judgment

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application qualified for review of the judgment of 29th September 2023

Holding

The application was frivolous and did not disclose grounds for review; it was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

The applicant's complaint was that the Court erred in failing to consider evidence that the appellant did not exhaust internal dispute resolution methods and failed to convene a disciplinary meeting on 7th October 1998. The Court held such dissatisfaction with, or alleged errors in, the judgment are matters for appeal to the Court of Appeal, not for review, and found the application frivolous.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party is merely dissatisfied with a first-instance judgment and alleges misconsideration of evidence, the correct remedy is an appeal, not review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 7th December 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the appellant/respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AJ
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent review jurisdiction of the Court (application for review of a judgment of the Court's Appeals Division; no specific provision cited in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

Review of the judgment delivered on 29th September 2023 and an order directing payment of monies awarded by the trial court per the decree and certificate of costs

The grounds do not fall within the purview of review; a dissatisfied party's correct avenue is an appeal to the Court of Appeal

p. 1

Costs

Application 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.

If that is the case and the Court thinks so, the correct avenue would be to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
p. 1Remedy for dissatisfaction with judgment is appeal, not review
The grounds upon which the application has been brought do fall within the purview of review for the Court to exercise its review jurisdiction.
p. 1Threshold for exercise of review jurisdiction
The application is therefore found frivolous and is hereby dismissed with costs.
p. 1Final orders - dismissal with costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment states the grounds 'do fall within the purview of review' in the context of dismissing the application for review, which on its face appears contrary to the dismissal; the intended meaning appears to be that the grounds do NOT fall within the purview of review

minor

The judgment is undated in its heading as to year of filing and does not state the case number, party names, or the specific statutory provision under which the review application was brought

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "University of Nairobi v Sifuna (Appeal 22 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2698/eng@2025-10-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.