Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated on the face of the ruling (Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 72 (KLR)

Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Brava Food Industries Limited (Cause E899 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 72 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 January 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,073 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

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an employer's attempt to escape a CBA order, ruling that review applications cannot be used to relitigate a lost case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually on 23rd January 2025 by Linnet Ndolo J, disposes of a Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2024 by the Respondent seeking to set aside, review and/or vary a judgment delivered on 24th October 2024, in which the Court had directed the parties to negotiate, conclude and present a duly executed Collective Bargaining Agreement for registration within 30 days. The Respondent, through an affidavit of its General Manager Osman Abdi Salat, argued that the Claimant Union had lost its simple majority representation of the workforce and even had no members, rendering further engagement unlawful, and that an application for revocation of the Recognition Agreement was pending before the National Labour Board. The Claimant opposed through Grounds of Opposition and a replying affidavit of General Secretary Danchael Mwangure, contending that no review ground under Rule 74 was disclosed, that the application rehashed trial arguments, and that it was an appeal disguised as a review and an abuse of process. The Court, citing its review powers under Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, held that the Respondent identified no specific review ground and was in substance seeking a re-opening of the case for a different verdict, a power the Court does not possess. Applying the dictum from Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex Parte Apollo Mboya on the strict threshold for review, the Court found the application an abuse of process, dismissed it, and awarded costs to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent established grounds for review under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules

Holding

No. The Respondent did not identify any specific ground for review, and the application was in substance an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided, amounting to an abuse of court process

Reasoning

The Court's power to review its own decisions derives from Section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 74, which requires discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason. The application identified no ground. Its substance was a request to re-open the case and obtain a different verdict, which the Court lacks power to grant. Relying on the Ex Parte Apollo Mboya formulation, no evident mistake was shown. The application was dismissed with costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review is impermissible without a glaring omission, evident mistake or similar ominous error; an error requiring lengthy argument cannot be cured by review
  • A party may not use a review application to invite the court to re-open a case and render a different verdict

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 24th October 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 54(1)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 74(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaNot specified

Cases cited (1)

  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex Parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Brava Food Industries Limited (Cause E899 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 72 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the ruling (Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/72/eng@2025-01-23

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