Riftvalley Railways Workers Union (K) v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1041 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to revisit its earlier ruling against a railway workers' union, confirming that disagreements about facts belong in an appeal, not a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged mischaracterisation of the two unions as rival entities is a reviewable error
It is not a reviewable error; it is a finding of fact amenable to appeal to the Court of Appeal
The court had already made a considered decision on the question of fact concerning the relationship between the unions. Once a court makes a conscious decision on a contested matter, it becomes functus officio. A mere disagreement with a finding of fact, or the assertion that another view was possible, does not constitute a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record under rule 33(1) of the 2016 Rules (now rule 74(1)(b) of the 2024 Rules). The applicant's remedy lies in an appeal.
Whether the review application was in substance an appeal disguised as review
Yes - the bold assertion that the court was wrong on the facts amounted to an appeal disguised as a review
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, the court held that where matters were fully canvassed and a conscious decision made, a wrong conclusion is a ground for appeal, not review; otherwise the Judge would be sitting in appeal over his own judgment, which is impermissible. The circumstances of that authority were held to mirror the present matter.
Whether a review may be heard by a bench of three Judges
No - the request was misconceived and unsupported by law or procedure
Review applications are heard by the Judge who made the original decision unless that Judge is unavailable for reasons beyond his or her control. No such unavailability existed here, and no law or rule of procedure supports a three-Judge bench for review in this court. The claimant retains the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal if aggrieved by the original decision.
Legal principles established
#- A conscious, considered decision of fact by a court is not an error apparent on the face of the record reviewable under the review rules; the remedy is appeal, not review, and review cannot be used by the same court to sit in appeal over its own judgment
- An application for review must be heard by the Judge who made the decision unless that Judge is unavailable for reasons beyond his or her control
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016, now rule 74(1)(b) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 - review jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riftvalley Railways Workers Union (K) v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1041 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/292/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.