Charles Onchwati v Karen Blixen Coffee Garden & Cottages Limited
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a worker's late attempt to review a judgment he had already been fully paid on, confirming that litigation must end.
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 for review is proper and merited
- 2.Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time
- 3.Whether the grounds raised constitute discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or an error apparent on the face of the record
Key legal issues
#Reasonable time under Rule 74
The application filed 6 months after judgment, after the decretal sum had been fully settled, was not filed within a reasonable time
The court compared the 6-month delay to the 14-day appeal window under Rule 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, noted the decree had been satisfied in full, and held the delay offended Rule 74 and the principle that litigation must come to an end.
Error apparent on the face of the record
None of the alleged omissions (service pay, leave allowance, salary arrears, credit bureau damages, interest) amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record; all were considered in the original judgment
The court reproduced its original findings on each head, held the complaints invited re-evaluation of merits which is the province of appeal, and applied the Muyodi test that a possible view adopted by the court cannot be an error for review.
Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
The NSSF statement, cheque and demand letter/SMS exhibits did not qualify as new evidence as they were in the applicant's knowledge or obtained post-judgment
The NSSF statement bore no employer name and showed employment dated after the judgment; the cheque was dated 31st December 2018 and its non-delivery was within the applicant's personal knowledge; the demand letter and messages were in his possession throughout the proceedings.
Abuse of court process and finality of litigation
Filing a review of a judgment already fully satisfied was an abuse of process and an afterthought
The respondent had paid the decretal sum of Kshs. 2,642,204.80 plus agreed costs of Kshs. 184,994; the applicant received payment then sought review of the same judgment, offending the principle that litigation must come to an end.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident; an error requiring long-drawn reasoning or on which two opinions are possible is a ground for appeal, not review
- Review is an alternative to appeal and must be brought within a reasonable time under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
- A review application cannot be used to introduce new claims or re-litigate determined issues; parties are bound by their pleadings
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, applied through Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Review, recall and/or vacation of the judgment delivered on 26th September 2025
Application filed outside a reasonable time, was an abuse of process after full settlement of the decree, and no error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence was established
Substitution of the judgment with an appropriate judgment on service dues, unpaid leave, underpayment, salary arrears, credit bureau damages and interest
All issues were considered in the original judgment; the alleged new evidence was available at hearing or post-judgment; parties are bound by pleadings
Costs
The application is 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.
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
An error which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
It is a truism that litigation must come to an end.
The court finds review is in the alternative to filing of appeal. Rule 74 requires an application for review to be filed within a reasonable time.
A document in respect of which the Applicant claims personal knowledge of non-delivery since 2018 is, by definition, neither new nor undiscoverable.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting judgment delivery dates within the judgment
Typographical error in the demand letter date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Onchwati v Karen Blixen Coffee Garden & Cottages Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause Number 185 of 2019 (Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2026 for review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2702/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.