Fredrick Omondi Abwajo & Another v Majestic Printing Works Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to reopen a concluded unfair dismissal case, ruling that review cannot fix mistakes made by a union during the original trial.
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 joinder of the intended 2nd Respondent is necessary after the final judgment.
- 2.Whether the Judgment delivered on 18th March 2026 should be reviewed as prayed.
Key legal issues
#Joinder of the union as 2nd Respondent after final judgment
Joinder refused; the application is reactionary and the union is not a necessary party to the concluded suit.
The court held the joinder application came too late after final judgment and was reactionary, serving only to pursue a negligence claim against the union. That dispute is secondary to the employer dispute and must be pursued in a fresh suit. The union's presence would not assist in determining the review question.
Whether documents A-P constitute new and important evidence warranting review
No; the documents were in the Claimants'/union's possession before judgment, so due diligence and discovery elements fail.
The Claimants admitted supplying the documents to the union, and the union did not dispute possessing them. Evidence known to a party's representative before the decree cannot qualify as discovered new matter under Rule 74. The grievance is with the union's conduct, not discovery of new evidence.
Functus officio and finality of judgment
The court, having delivered final judgment, is functus officio and cannot reopen the matter to patch a weak claim.
The court invoked the principle of finality: once final judgment is delivered the court becomes functus officio. Review under Rule 74 is not an avenue to prosecute a case afresh or introduce afterthought evidence. The Claimants' dissatisfaction with their union's conduct cannot be remedied in the concluded suit.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court delivers a final judgment it becomes functus officio; review cannot be used to reopen concluded matters to improve claims.
- Elements for admitting new evidence on review under Rule 74: not known or accessible, due diligence, material and relevant, and probable different outcome.
- A trade union is liable in damages if it fails to perform its mandate to represent its members (as per Rika J in Seth Panyako v KUDHEIHA).
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 23rd April 2026 is dismissed in its entirety.
- 2.The Claimants are not condemned to pay costs since the Respondent did not participate in the motion.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Admission and consideration of documents marked A-P as new evidence
Documents were in the union's possession and known to the Claimants; not discovered new evidence.
Review of paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment to award salary/housing allowance arrears, gratuity, leave, overtime and days worked
Review cannot be used to prosecute a case afresh or patch up a weak claim; the court is functus officio.
Joinder of the General Secretary and Kenya Union of Printing, Publishing, Paper Manufacturers, Pulp and Packaging Industries (Kupripupa) as 2nd Respondent
Joinder after final judgment is too late and the union is not a necessary party; dispute with the union is secondary.
Declaration that the union failed in fiduciary and duty of care and payment of special and general damages
Claimants at liberty to file a fresh suit against the union, not to introduce it under the guise of joinder.
Costs
No costs ordered - the Respondent did not participate in the motion, so the Claimants were not condemned to pay costs.
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 trite law that review of judgments cannot be used by an applicant as an opportunity to prosecute his case afresh, introduce afterthought evidence or patch up a weak claim.
Once a court delivers a final judgment, it becomes functus officio in the matter.
In the end, I hold that the notice of motion dated 23rd April 2026 is benefit of merits and it is dismissed it its entirety.
Since the Respondent did not participate in the motion, I will not condemn the Claimants to pay costs.
Consequently, I declined the request for the joinder of the union since it is not a necessary party to the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Header contains apparent typographical error '(ON Makau J on 24th September 2026)' instead of 'Ruling by Makau J'.
Disposition sentence garbled: 'is benefit of merits and it is dismissed it its entirety'.
Judgment date of 18th March 2026 and ruling date of 24th September 2026 appear to be future-dated relative to Cause No. E330 of 2022.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fredrick Omondi Abwajo & Another v Majestic Printing Works Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E330 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2513/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.