Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated on the face of the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1090 (KLR)

Commission for Human Rights and Justice v Kenya Fishing Industries Corporation; Nyaberi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition 013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1090 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 April 2025
MMM. MBARŨ
1,127 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court set aside its own judgment because a government filing-system glitch hid the State's filed defence documents from the judge.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent, the Attorney General acting through Senior State Counsel Evelyn Njoki Kagoi, applied on 25 February 2025 under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act for review and setting aside of the judgment delivered on 13 February 2025. The respondent contended that its Replying Affidavit dated 6 November 2024, written submissions and List of Authorities, all duly filed, were omitted from the court's analysis, which recorded that no response or submissions had been filed; this amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. The respondent also challenged the petitioner's non-registration with the Public Benefit Organization Authority. The petitioner filed no response and did not attend the oral hearing; only the interested parties attended. The court verified on the CTS that the respondent's documents had been filed between 8 November 2024 and 28 January 2025, and found that the CTS, configured to accept filings from the Office of the Attorney General without payment, had errors in processing and relaying such records to the judge. Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau and Multichoice (Kenya) Ltd v Wananchi Group (Kenya) Ltd, the court held that the omission of duly filed documents despite due diligence was an error apparent on the record. The court allowed the application, set aside the judgment of 13 February 2025, directed the parties to address the court on the filed records, and made no orders on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the failure of the court to access and consider the respondent's filed documents constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record

Holding

Yes - the documents were filed in good time but were not accessed by the court due to CTS processing errors; the error is apparent and must be remedied by setting aside the judgment.

Reasoning

The court verified on the CTS that the respondent had filed a Notice of Appointment, Response, Replying Affidavit, written submissions and List of Authorities between November 2024 and January 2025. The judgment of 13 February 2025 recorded that no response or submissions had been filed. The CTS, which accepts documents from the Office of the Attorney General without payment, had errors in how information is processed and relayed for the judge to access. The omission of duly filed documents, despite due diligence, satisfied the Rule 74 ground of error apparent on the face of the record.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court; the error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument.
  • Errors contemplated under Rule 74 or Order 45 should be errors on the record, not errors of law.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 25 February 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.Judgment delivered on 13 February 2025 is set aside
  3. 3.Parties to attend and address the court on the filed records
  4. 4.No orders on costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Commission for Human Rights and Justice v Kenya Fishing Industries Corporation; Nyaberi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition 013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1090/eng@2025-04-03

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