Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELRC 1565 (KLR)

Nahason Ndiamae & 10 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1565 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
28 June 2018
889 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to review its own six-month-old judgment, ruling that a registered union cannot be destabilised and grievances belong in an appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Interested Party/Applicant, represented by Mr. Albert Njeru, brought a Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2017 under Section (Rule) 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 seeking review of the Court's judgment delivered on 19th May 2017, which had been entered in favour of the Appellants. The Applicant asserted that it was unaware of the suit before judgment and therefore could not place crucial evidence, including its Union Constitution, before the Court, and that the registration of a splinter union covering the same sector and objectives would scuttle its operations. The Registrar of Trade Unions opposed the application, deponing that the Court had all crucial evidence and that following the judgment the Appellant Union was duly registered on 24th May 2017 with Certificate of Registration No. TU/178. The Appellants also opposed, contending that the application was not a proper matter for review and should be pursued by appeal. The Court, per Hellen Wasilwa J, identified two fatal defects. First, the application filed on 27th November 2017, roughly six months after judgment, was not within a reasonable time, and the registered Union could not be destabilised at that late stage. Secondly, the matters raised did not fall within the Rule 33 review thresholds; entertaining them would amount to the Court sitting on appeal against its own judgment. The Court found nothing reviewable and dismissed the application. No costs order was stated. Dated and delivered on 28th June 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application was brought within a reasonable time

Holding

The application filed on 27th November 2017 following a judgment delivered in May 2017 was not filed within a reasonable time, and the registered Union could not be destabilised at that late stage

Reasoning

The Court noted the judgment was delivered in late May 2017 and the review application was not lodged until 27th November 2017. This delay of about six months was held not to be a reasonable period. In the interim the Appellant Union had been registered on 24th May 2017 and issued with Certificate of Registration No. TU/178, and the Court held that a duly registered union could not be destabilised at such a late time.

p. 2
02

Whether the grounds raised fall within the review thresholds under Rule 33

Holding

The issues raised by the Applicant did not fall within the grounds for review and could best be dealt with on appeal

Reasoning

Rule 33 permits review on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or any other sufficient reason. The Court found that the matters raised by the Applicant did not fit these parameters; allowing review on those grounds would amount to the Court sitting on appeal against its own judgment, which is impermissible.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review must be filed within a reasonable time, and where a party seeks to challenge a judgment on grounds outside the review thresholds, the proper remedy is an appeal, not review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2017 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 19th May 2017 is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 33
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nahason Ndiamae & 10 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1565 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1565/eng@2018-06-28

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