Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union & 6 others v Equinox Horticulture Ltd & 9 others

2. For the reason that the applications dated 23rd February 2026 and 6th July 2026 arise from, or are connected to the ruling delivered on 5th February 2026, I deem it appropriate to determine them through this consolidated ruling. 3. On 10th December 2025, the Registrar of Trade Unions issued a Certicate of Dissolution in respect of the Kenya Export Floriculture, Horticulture & Allied Workers Union. Subsequently, an application dated 20th January 2026 was placed before the Court. The matter came up before the Court on 3rd February 2026 and thereafter on 5th February 2026. 4. In its ruling delivered on 5th February 2026, the Court (Stella Rutto J) noted that the application was substantially unopposed. The Court further observed that although a Replying Adavit sworn by Mr. David Benedict Omulama was physically on the Court record, the requisite ling fees had not been paid and the adavit was therefore not duly led. 5. The Court specically considered the Certicate of Dissolution dated 10th December 2025 and found that the Union was no longer in existence. The Court consequently observed that further proceedings would be rendered moot in view of the dissolution. 6. Following that ruling, the Applicants, David Benedict Omulama and six others, led the Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026, seeking, inter alia, review, variation and/or setting aside of the ruling and orders of 5th February 2026. 7. Thereafter, the 1st Interested Party led the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026, contending, in substance, that the dissolution of the Union rendered the consolidated proceedings moot and incapable of further determination. 8. On 6th July 2026, the Applicants led a further application seeking a stay of the proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026, in which the dissolution of the Union is said to be in dispute. 9. The Respondent/Claimant opposed the application dated 6th July 2026 and led a Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2026, contending, among other issues, locus standi, jurisdiction, functus ocio, res judicata and abuse of the court process. The Application dated 23rd February 2026 10. The Applicants seek the following orders:1. Spent 2. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review and vary and/or set aside its ruling and/or orders rendered and/or issued on 5th day of February 2026 and replace thereto with an order reinstating the application dated 20th January 2026 for interparties hearing on merits. 3. That the Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to le a replying adavit, documents and authorities in defense of the application dated 20th January 2026. 11. The Claimant led a replying adavit sworn by one Meshack Khisa on 27th February 2026. No other party to the suit led a response to this application. 12. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant and the Claimant/ Respondent led their respective submissions. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 9

The Applicants' Submissions 13. The Applicants submit that the application satises the requirements for review of the ruling and orders issued on 5th February 2026. They rely on error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, and sucient reason. 14. They submit that they were denied an opportunity to participate in the proceedings that culminated in the ruling of 5th February 2026. They contend that they were under the impression the matter was scheduled to proceed at 9.00 a.m., but it allegedly proceeded at 8.00 a.m. without prior notication. They further submit that their representative encountered diculties accessing the virtual proceedings. 15. The Applicants further submit that the Replying Adavit sworn by David Benedict Omulama had been prepared, uploaded and physically placed on the Court le, but that the requisite ling fees had not been paid at the time the ruling was delivered. They contend that the failure to complete payment arose from circumstances beyond their control and that they subsequently regularised the position. 16. It is further submitted that there existed ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026, in which the validity of the dissolution of the Union was being challenged. The Applicants contend that this was a material matter that the Court did not consider before concluding that the consolidated proceedings had been rendered moot. 17. The Applicants consequently submit that the circumstances disclose sucient reason to warrant review of the ruling of 5th February 2026 and urge the Court to set aside or review the impugned orders and aord them an opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Respondent/Claimant's Submissions 18. The Respondent/Claimant opposes the application and submits that the Applicants have not satised the statutory or procedural requirements for review. 19. It is submitted further that the Union was dissolved on 10th December 2025 and consequently ceased to exist as a legal entity. The Respondent/Claimant therefore contends that persons purporting to act on behalf of the dissolved Union lack the legal capacity to institute or continue proceedings in its name. 20. The Respondent/Claimant further submits that the Replying Adavit relied upon by the Applicants was not duly led at the time the ruling of 5th February 2026 was delivered, as the requisite ling fees had not been paid. It is therefore contended that the Court cannot be faulted for failing to consider a document which was not properly before it. 21. The Respondent/Claimant further argues that the existence of separate proceedings challenging the dissolution does not, without an order suspending or setting aside the Certicate of Dissolution, aect the legal consequences of the dissolution. 22. The Respondent/Claimant consequently urges the Court to nd that the application does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or sucient reason to warrant review, and prays that the application be dismissed. The Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 23. On its part, the 1st Interested Party led a Preliminary Objection, and the court directed that the same be canvassed by way of written submissions. Only the 1st Interested Party had led its submissions as at the time of writing this ruling, as shown in the CTS. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 9

The 1st Interested Party's Submissions 24. The 1st Interested Party submits that the consolidated proceedings were rendered spent and overtaken by events following the dissolution of the Union on 10th December 2025. 25. It submits that upon dissolution, the Union ceased to exist as a legal entity capable of suing, being sued or participating in any proceedings. 26. The 1st Interested Party consequently argues that any continued proceedings involving or dependent upon the existence of the Union would be moot and incapable of resulting in an eective or enforceable determination. 27. The 1st Interested Party further submits that the Court should not engage in an academic exercise or continue proceedings where the substratum of the dispute has ceased to exist, and consequently urges the Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection. 28. The Court also notes that the 1st Interested Party's submissions raised additional issues relating to sub judice, res judicata and locus standi. However, as these matters were not expressly set out as grounds in the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Court will consider them only to the extent they properly arise from the objection as pleaded. The Application dated 6th July 2026 29. 30. Through the application dated 6th July 2026, the Applicants seek the following orders:1. Spent 2. Spent 3. That, upon inter-parties hearing, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order staying proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026 pending hearing and determination of Nairobi ELRC Case No. E019 of 2026. 4. The costs of this application be borne by the Respondents. The Claimant/Respondent led a Replying Adavit sworn by Meshack Khisa on 7th July 2026. The application was similarly canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicants' Submissions 31. The Applicants submit that the application dated 23rd February 2026 ought to be stayed pending the hearing and determination of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026. 32. They submit that the issue of the validity of the dissolution of the Union is directly in issue in the said cause and that the determination of the review application before the issue of dissolution is resolved may result in inconsistent decisions. 33. The Applicants contend that the ruling of 5th February 2026, which forms the subject of the review application, was substantially founded upon the Certicate of Dissolution. They therefore submit that the question regarding the validity and eect of that dissolution should rst be conclusively determined in ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026. 34. They urge the Court to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice and stay the application dated 23rd February 2026 pending the determination of the said cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 4

page 4 of 9

The Respondent/Claimant's Submissions 35. The Respondent/Claimant opposes the application and submits that it is incompetent and amounts to an attempt to delay or reopen matters already determined by the Court. 36. It is submitted that the Applicants have not demonstrated the legal capacity or authority to litigate on behalf of the dissolved Union. The Respondent/Claimant further argues that the ruling of 5th February 2026 remains valid and binding unless reviewed or set aside through proper legal proceedings. 37. The Respondent/Claimant also submits that the mere pendency of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026 does not automatically operate as a stay of proceedings before this Court. The Applicants were therefore required to demonstrate a proper legal basis for the stay sought. 38. The Respondent/Claimant accordingly urges the Court to dismiss the application. The Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2026 39. The Preliminary Objection challenges the competence of the application dated 6th July 2026 and raises questions relating to, inter alia, locus standi, jurisdiction, functus ocio, res judicata and abuse of the court process. Analysis and Determination 40. From the various motions, the objections and the parties’ submissions, the following issues arise for determination: i. Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 is merited; ii. Whether the Applicants have established grounds for review of the ruling and orders of 5th February 2026; iii. Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2026 disposes of the application dated 6th July 2026; and iv. Whether there is a basis for staying the proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026 pending the determination of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026. Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 is merited 41. The principles governing a Preliminary Objection are now well settled. In Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, it was held that a Preliminary Objection must raise a pure point of law which, if successfully argued, may dispose of the matter. 42. The Supreme Court has further armed this position, and emphasized that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and should not require the Court to undertake a factual inquiry. (See Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Cheprenger & 2 Others (Civil Application 36 of 2014) [2015] KESC 2 (KLR) (15 December 2015). 43. Equally, a Preliminary Objection cannot properly be raised where its determination requires the Court to ascertain contested facts or to exercise judicial discretion. 44. In the present case, the principal foundation of the Preliminary Objection is the dissolution of the Union on 10th December 2025 and the legal consequence of that dissolution upon the consolidated proceedings. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 5

page 5 of 9

45. Signicantly, the issue of dissolution is not being raised for the rst time. This Court considered the issue in its ruling of 5th February 2026, in which it specically referred to the Certicate of Dissolution issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions and found that the Union no longer existed. 46. The Court further observed in that ruling that further proceedings would be rendered moot in view of the dissolution. 47. The fact of dissolution was therefore already part of the Court record and had been the subject of a judicial pronouncement. To that extent, the present Preliminary Objection does not require the Court to embark upon a fresh factual inquiry as to whether the Certicate of Dissolution existed. 48. The Court notes that the application dated 23rd February 2026 directly seeks a review of the ruling through which that nding was made. The ruling of 5th February 2026 is therefore itself the subject of a pending application for review. 49. In the circumstances, the Court nds that it would be inappropriate to use the Preliminary Objection to conclusively dispose of the consolidated proceedings before determining whether the ruling upon which the objection substantially relies should be reviewed. 50. The Preliminary Objection is therefore closely intertwined with the application dated 23rd February 2026. The Court shall consequently rst determine whether grounds have been established for review of the ruling of 5th February 2026. Whether grounds have been established for review of the Ruling of 5th February, 2026 51. The Court's power to review its decisions is provided for under Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024. The provisions grant the Court power to review its judgments, awards, orders and decrees in accordance with the applicable Rules. 52. The principles governing review are now also well settled. In National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau(Civil Appeal 211 of 1996) [1997] KECA 71 (KLR) (27 May 1997) (Judgment), the Court of Appeal held as follows:“ A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sucient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a dierent view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.” 53. Similarly, in John Peter Kamau Ruhangi v Kenya Reinsurance Corporation [2012] KECA 7 (KLR), the Court of Appeal expressed itself as follows:“ In this case we are mainly concerned with review on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. As Mr. Machira correctly submitted, an error apparent on the face of the record is not one which is to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there could possibly be two opinions. This Court made that quite clear in the case of Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates vs Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173. An error apparent on the face of the record includes an omission which must also be glaring and self evident. It is not one that requires an elaborate argument or serious scrutiny of the record to be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 6

page 6 of 9

established-- National Bank of Kenya Ltd. Vs Ndungu Njau, civil Appeal No. 211 of 1996 (unreported). As was stated by the Nigerian Court of Appeal in the case of Peter Cheshe & Another Vs Nicon Hotels Ltd. & Another, Appeal No. CA/A/83/M/98 that an error on the face of the record is one that can be corrected under the slip rule whose jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors, mistakes or omissions in the ruling or judgment and does not permit granting orders not made or extending the scope of the ruling.” 54. The question for this Court is therefore whether the circumstances relied upon by the Applicants disclose an apparent error, discovery of new and important matter, or any other sucient reason within the meaning of Rule 74. 55. The rst matter concerns the Replying Adavit of Mr. Omulama. The ruling of 5th February 2026 expressly acknowledged that the adavit was physically on the Court record, but found that it had not been paid for and was therefore not duly led. 56. The Applicants now explain the circumstances surrounding the failure to complete payment and contend that the ling was subsequently regularised. 57. The Court observes, however, that the adavit was admittedly not duly led as at the time the ruling was delivered. The Court cannot therefore be faulted for failing to treat a document that had not been paid for as a properly led pleading. 58. The subsequent payment of ling fees does not, by itself, convert a document which was not duly led at the material time into a matter that was before the Court when it made its decision. 59. The Court nds and holds that this cannot by any interpretation constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. 60. The Applicants have also relied on the alleged change of the hearing time and their inability to participate in the proceedings. These matters do not, strictly speaking, disclose an error apparent on the face of the ruling. They nevertheless raise the separate question of whether they amount to sucient reason to warrant review. 61. The Court has considered the Applicants' explanation against the entire history of the matter. A review on the ground of sucient reason is not intended to permit a party to reopen proceedings merely because it failed to attend court. The Court must be satised that the circumstances warrant interference with an order already made. 62. In the present case, the Applicants' case is that they were unable to participate because of the alleged alteration of the hearing time and diculties in joining the virtual proceedings. They further contend that they were unaware of the subsequent date when the ruling was delivered. 63. These assertions are, however, matters requiring proof from the Court record and the applicable notices and directions. More fundamentally, even if the Applicants were aorded a further opportunity to be heard, the material they seek to introduce must show that the Court could have reached a dierent conclusion regarding the eect of the dissolution. 64. The Applicants have further relied on the existence of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026, which they state challenges the dissolution of the Union. 65. The mere existence of another suit challenging the dissolution does not, without more, invalidate or suspend the Certicate of Dissolution upon which this Court acted. The Applicants were required to demonstrate that, as at the time of the ruling or thereafter, the dissolution had been suspended, set aside or otherwise rendered legally ineective. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 7

page 7 of 9

66. On the material presently before this Court, the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Certicate of Dissolution dated 10th December 2025 had been quashed, suspended or set aside. 67. Further, the existence of proceedings challenging the dissolution does not in itself amount to a new and important matter that would warrant review of the ruling of 5th February 2026. 68. Having considered the grounds advanced by the Applicants, the Court nds that no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or sucient reason has been established to warrant review of the ruling of 5th February 2026. 69. The Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026 therefore fails. The eect of the nding on the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 70. Having found that the Applicants have not established grounds for review of the ruling of 5th February 2026, the nding made by the Court concerning the dissolution of the Union remains undisturbed. 71. The Court had already found, on the basis of the Certicate of Dissolution dated 10th December 2025, that the Union was no longer in existence and that further proceedings had been rendered moot. 72. The Court therefore nds merit in the substance of the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 to the extent that it relies upon the legal consequence of the dissolution and the continued subsistence of the ruling of 5th February 2026. 73. The Preliminary Objection is accordingly upheld. The Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2026 and the application dated 6th July 2026 74. The application dated 6th July 2026 seeks a stay of the proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2026. 75. The Court has already determined the application dated 23rd February 2026 through this ruling. The principal relief sought in the application dated 6th July 2026, namely a stay of proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026, has therefore been overtaken by events. 76. There are consequently no pending proceedings in the application dated 23rd February 2026 capable of being stayed. The application dated 6th July 2026 is therefore moot. 77. In view of the foregoing ndings, it is an academic exercise for the Court to proceed and make substantive ndings on every ground raised in the Preliminary Objection dated 7th July 2026. 78. In the end, the Court makes the following orders: - 79. i. That the Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. ii. That the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 is hereby upheld. iii. That the ndings and orders made on 5th February 2026 remain undisturbed. iv. That the Notice of Motion dated 6th July 2026 is overtaken by events and is marked as spent. v. Parties shall bear their own costs. Orders accordingly. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 8

page 8 of 9

SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. C. N. BAARI JUDGE Appearance: Mr. Khisa present for the Claimant Ms. Kwamboka present for the 2nd Interested Party Mr. Omulama present for the Applicants. Ms. Esther S -C/A https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2543/eng@2026-09-24 9

page 9 of 9