Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 14th November 2023 (filed 31st January 2024)· [2024] KEELRC 1185 (KLR)

Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Kenya Highland University (Cause 103 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1185 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 May 2024
1,886 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's employment court dismissed a union's attempt to revisit a lost case, confirming that evidence already before a judge cannot be recycled as 'new' grounds for review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Hellen Wasilwa, J, delivered virtually on 21st May 2024, determines a Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2023 by the Kenya Universities Staff Union seeking, under rule 33(1)(a) and (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, to review, vary or set aside the Court's Ruling of 21st March 2023, which had dismissed the union's suit on the basis that there was no subsisting Recognition Agreement with Kibabii University. The Applicant contended that new and relevant evidence - the Recognition Agreement dated 23rd June 2016 - had been discovered, and that the Respondent had concealed its existence, leading to the adverse orders. The Respondent opposed, showing that the Recognition Agreement was annexed to the Applicant's own application of 2nd December 2022, was extensively relied upon in submissions, and that the ruling under review had expressly considered it, finding it validly terminated by the Respondent's letter of 7th July 2022 giving three months' notice under clause 4, to which the Applicant never responded. The Respondent relied on Philip Kipngetich Cheruiyot v County Government of Bomet and Hasham Lalji Properties Ltd to argue that an erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is a ground for appeal, not review, and that the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The Court agreed that the Recognition Agreement was always part of the proceedings and had been considered in the earlier ruling, so there was no new discovery. The application for review was found unmerited and dismissed, with no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was discovery of new and important evidence justifying review under rule 33(1)(a) & (d) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules / Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application fails because the alleged 'new' evidence - the Recognition Agreement dated 23rd June 2016 - was on record, annexed to the Applicant's own application of 2nd December 2022, and was expressly considered in the ruling sought to be reviewed

Reasoning

The court traced the Recognition Agreement (annexture KPUWU-1, dated 23/6/2016) to the Applicant's application dated 2nd December 2022 and noted that the ruling of 21st March 2023 quoted its clause 4 and found the agreement terminated by the Respondent's letter of 7th July 2022 giving three months' notice, to which the Applicant never responded. The court therefore found the claim of new discovery untrue.

p. 5
02

Whether the Applicant's grievance about the Court's earlier finding amounts to a proper ground for review

Holding

No - dissatisfaction with an erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is a matter for appeal, not review

Reasoning

The Respondent, relying on Philip Kipngetich Cheruiyot v County Government of Bomet, argued that review cannot be used as a second bite at the cherry. The court accepted that the ruling under review had already considered the Recognition Agreement and its termination clause, so the application sought a fresh hearing or correction of an erroneous view, which is not a permissible ground for review.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Review lies only for discovery of new and important evidence not within the applicant's knowledge at the time; evidence already on record and considered by the court cannot constitute a new discovery, and an erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is a ground for appeal, not review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review of the Ruling dated 21st March 2023 is found unmerited and is dismissed
  2. 2.There will be no order of costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33(1)(a) & (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Kenya Highland University (Cause 103 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1185 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2023 (filed 31st January 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1185/eng@2024-05-21

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