Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedEmployment and Labour Relations Cause E174 & E214 of 2022 (Consolidated)· [2026] KEELRC 2761 (KLR)

Maina & another v Golden Lion International Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
6 October 2026
HWHellen S. Wasilwa
5,680 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to reopen a Kshs. 35 million judgment against Golden Lion International, ruling that disagreements with a decision belong on appeal, not review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Golden Lion International Limited, the respondent in consolidated ELRC Causes E174 and E214 of 2022, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decrees of 23rd July 2025 and review, variation or setting aside of that judgment. The judgment had awarded the claimants, Michael Macharia Maina and Joseph Kimanzi Musyoki, over Kshs. 35 million, including Kshs. 32,629,830 as reimbursement of unlawful deductions and Kshs. 840,000 in leave pay. The applicant advanced five grounds: failure to evaluate its evidence on the commission-based agency arrangement; misapplication of Section 19 of the Employment Act in treating commission as wages; an evidentially baseless leave award; inadequate reasoning on employee status under the control test; and failure to determine the effect of the parties' oral contract on commission deductions. The claimants opposed, arguing the application was a disguised appeal, that no error apparent on the face of the record existed, that the court had become functus officio, and that no execution was even ongoing. Relying on the settled threshold that reviewable errors must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument, Wasilwa J held that the applicant was inviting the court to reopen the case, reconsider and re-analyse the evidence and reach a different determination - a function reserved for the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the alleged failure to evaluate evidence, misapplication of Section 19 of the Employment Act, inadequate reasoning on employee status and omission of the oral contract constitute errors apparent on the face of the record

Holding

No - these are complaints about the merits, adequacy of reasoning and weight of evidence on hotly contested issues, amenable only to appeal, not review

Reasoning

The court found that the applicant was inviting it to reopen the case, reconsider the evidence, analyse it again and make a fresh determination. Review lies only for self-evident errors requiring no elaborate argument; disagreements with the court's evaluation of evidence, construction of statutes or application of the control test go to the substance of the decision and are appellate matters.

p. 11
02

Whether stay of execution pending the review application should issue

Holding

No - the review application was dismissed, so no stay could issue

Reasoning

The stay was sought pending hearing and determination of the review application itself. Once the court declined to review its judgment, there was no basis for a stay. The court did not separately analyse the stay thresholds of substantial loss, promptitude and security.

Legal principles established

#
  • A court on review cannot re-open a case, reconsider and re-analyse evidence, or sit on appeal on its own judgment; such grievances are reserved for the Court of Appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2025 seeking review and stay of execution is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 19
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 73
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 74(1)

Cases cited (11)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau
    [1997] KECA 71 (KLR)

    Review lies only to correct an apparent error or omission that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument

  • Batian Security Company Ltd v Gatinya
    [2023] KEELRC 2266 (KLR)

    Setting aside an award of leave pay where the trial court had no basis for the reliance placed

  • Ali v Grain Industries Limited
    [2025] KEELRC 1331 (KLR)

    Stay pending determination of review proceedings granted upon demonstration of substantial loss

  • John Wachira Githongo v Soyama Hardware Limited
    (2017) eKLR

    Distinction between employment and independent contracting

  • Everret Aviation Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2013] eKLR

    Distinction between employment and independent contracting

  • Wambugu Ndirangu v 2NK Sacco Society Ltd
    [2019] eKLR

    Distinction between employment and independent contracting

  • Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Ltd v Andrew Walthaka Kiragu
    [2019] eKLR

    Distinction between employment and independent contracting

  • Multichoice (Kenya) Ltd v Wananchi Group (Kenya) Limited & 2 Others
    [2020] eKLR

    An error apparent on the face of the record is prima facie visible and requires no detailed examination

  • Republic v Minister for Lands and Settlement & 2 others
    [2022] KEELRC 3845 (KLR)

    Submissions are not evidence; a hotly contested issue cannot be reviewed by the same court

  • Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Exparte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    [1997] eKLR

    Cited by applicant; respondents argued it concerns mandamus and is irrelevant to review under Rule 74

  • RWW v EKW
    [2019] eKLR

    An applicant must do more than allege substantial loss; cogent evidence of the nature and extent of loss is required

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rules 73 and 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maina & another v Golden Lion International Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause E174 & E214 of 2022 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2761/eng@2026-10-06

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