Union of Kenya Civil Servants v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 4 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to review its earlier orders because a review is not a second chance to fix a weak application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application met the Rule 33 threshold for review
It did not; the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any new and important matter, error apparent, or other sufficient reason for review
Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 governs review of the Court's judgments, decisions and directions and requires demonstration of grounds such as discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The Petitioner did not set out any new matter, mistake or substantial issue concerning the 4th August 2016 orders. The application merely replicated the earlier defective application of 22nd March 2016 with minor additions, which the Court held could not constitute grounds for review.
Whether the review application was an abuse of Court process
Yes; the proper remedy was amendment of the petition and application as directed on 4th August 2016, not a review application replicating the earlier prayers
On 4th August 2016 the Court found the application of 22nd March 2016 missing key pages and grounds, allowed the Petitioner to amend the Petition and application, and vacated the interim orders which rested on incomplete material. Instead of complying, the Petitioner filed a near-replica application seeking review. The Court held that seeking review of clear directions to circumvent them engages respondents in unnecessary litigation and constitutes abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review must be founded on the grounds set out in Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available despite due diligence
- Review is not an appropriate vehicle to reopen or circumvent clear Court directions; the proper course where directions require amendment is to amend, and filing a review instead is an abuse of process
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th September 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Rules, 2010 / Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Union of Kenya Civil Servants v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 4 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause dated 22nd March 2016 (application dated 13th September 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/4/eng@2016-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.