Aura v Trans Nile Enterprises Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 280 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1517 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a client's attempt to review a ruling, confirming that disagreements with a judge's reasoning belong in an appeal, not a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold for review under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
The application did not meet the threshold; neither discovery of new and important matter nor error apparent on the face of the ruling was established.
The court considered the depositions and submissions and found that the alleged new matters - the part payment of fees of Kshs 242,100 and the part decretal sum of Kshs 200,000 held by the Advocate - were known to the Applicant before the prior ruling and no explanation was given for not raising them then. The court also found no error apparent on the face of the ruling and held the application was in substance an appeal disguised as review, with the issues properly raised in the pending reference on taxation.
Disguised appeal as review
The application was an appeal disguised as an application for review and was therefore an improper vehicle to attack the ruling.
The court relied on the decision in Francis Ongo and another v Jacob Kuwali Mangala (C.A. Civil Appeal No. 149 of 2001, unreported), cited by the Advocate/Respondent, for the position that disagreement with the decision of fact and law in the ruling constitutes grounds of appeal rather than a proper basis for review. The Applicant had also lodged a reference on the taxed costs, in which the matters raised should be considered.
Legal principles established
#- A review application cannot be used as a disguised appeal against the correctness of the court's decision on fact and law; such disagreements constitute grounds of appeal, not grounds for review.
- Matters known to an applicant before a ruling was made, which could have been raised in the earlier application, do not qualify as a new and important matter of evidence for review.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 5/11/2024 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction under Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aura v Trans Nile Enterprises Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 280 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1517 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 5/11/2024 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1517/eng@2025-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.