Nandi v Maisha Packaging Company Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1031 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 14 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's grounds fall within the grounds for review under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
- 2.Whether item no. 2 of the order of 27th February 2023 (condition that taxed costs be paid before fixing the suit for hearing) should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's inability to comply with the condition of paying taxed costs (because the Respondents had not taxed their costs) constitutes sufficient reason for review
No - the grounds did not fit within Rule 33 grounds for review, and the application was overtaken by events because the Respondents had since filed a Bill of Costs
The court noted the review grounds relied on were inability to pay taxed costs because the Respondents had not taxed their costs. The Respondents explained no timeline was set and a pending Bill of Costs was filed in compliance with court directions. The court found the grounds did not fit the Rule 33 categories of discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason, and the pending taxation had rendered the application moot.
Whether the condition imposed in the ruling of 27th February 2023 should be set aside on grounds of prejudice
No - the condition that the Claimant pay the total costs due to the Respondents stands, as court orders are not issued in vain
The court endorsed the reasoning of M. Mbaru J that the Claimant was an indolent litigant who was permitted to argue his case on condition of paying costs to the Respondents. The court held that such conditions must be adhered to because the court does not issue orders in vain. The Claimant's application had also remained unprosecuted for a long period, being filed in August 2023 and served only in April 2024.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court that is self-evident; a different view or an erroneous conclusion of law is not a ground for review
- Conditional orders issued by the court must be adhered to as the court does not issue orders in vain
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's application dated 29th August 2023 seeking review of the ruling of 27th February 2023 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Review of the ruling of 27th February 2023 and setting aside of item no. 2 of the order (condition of payment of taxed costs before fixing the matter for hearing)
The grounds did not fall within the grounds for review under Rule 33 and the application was overtaken by events since the Respondents filed their Bill of Costs
Costs
No orders as to costs - the Application was dismissed with no orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is neither discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor a suficient reason given as to why this court should consider a review of the Ruling dated 27th February 2023.
the Applicant was an indolent litigant and was only allowed to argue his case on condition that he pays the total costs due to the Respondents which should be adhered to as court does not issue orders in vain.
The upshot is that the Application lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is irregular - the judgment jumps from paragraph 16 to paragraph 28, then to 30-32, suggesting omitted passages
The judgment does not state the case number or the parties' names, referring to them only as 'the Claimant' and 'the Respondents'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nandi v Maisha Packaging Company Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1031 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 14 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/14/eng@2025-01-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.