Johin Ososi v Cyka Manpower Ltd
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a review application because the applicant claimed new evidence existed but never actually showed it to the court.
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 Applicant has satisfied the threshold for review of the ruling delivered on 22nd January 2026 under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules
- 2.Whether the Applicant is estopped from invoking the review jurisdiction having consented to the ruling date and delayed over three months
- 3.Whether the Court is functus officio in respect of issues determined in the ruling of 22nd January 2026
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated discovery of new and important matter or evidence under Rule 74(1)(a)
The application fails because the alleged new evidence was never exhibited before the court.
The court accepted it has jurisdiction to review under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024. However, under Rule 74(1)(a), any new and important matter or evidence relied upon must be exhibited in the supporting affidavit. The Applicant merely averred that new material existed in the Respondent's possession but placed no such evidence before the court, leaving the court unable to assess its weight, genuineness or relevance.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for review on the ground of discovery of new and important matter must exhibit that material as proof of the discovery; mere averment is insufficient.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 29th April 2026 is dismissed
- 2.There shall be an order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 22nd January 2026
Application for review not proved
Vacating, review, variation or setting aside of the ruling of 22nd January 2026
No new and important matter or evidence was exhibited before the court
Leave to file a Further Affidavit in response to averments of fraud
Application dismissed in its entirety
Costs
There shall be an order of costs (recorded in the judgment as 'There shall be on order of 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.
In the circumstances of this case, I find the application not proved and is found unmerited and dismissed accordingly. There shall be on order of costs.
if indeed there is a discovery of a new and important matter or evidence such new discovery or important matter should be exhibited as part of the supporting affidavit as proof of such discovery
The court is left guessing or wondering what the new discovery is and is not thus in a position to determine herein how weighty the discovery would be to the determination of the case.
Issues in the judgment
#Costs order text ambiguous - 'on order of costs' likely typo for 'an' or 'no'
Application dated 29th April 2026 but cause number is E097 OF 2025
Court cites Rule 74 of the 2024 Rules while parties argued Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and Rule 33 of the 2016 Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johin Ososi v Cyka Manpower Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E097 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2720/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.