Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Met-al Masters Engineering Limited (Cause 773 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1611 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a union's attempt to revisit a lost recognition case, ruling its complaints belonged in an appeal, not a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the finding that the suit was premature for want of an appointed conciliator constituted an error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent; the applicant had not complied step by step with the statutory procedure including proof of service of the dispute and obtaining written reasons for any refusal to appoint a conciliator
The Court examined sections 62 and 65 of the Labour Relations Act. Section 62(2) required the applicant to show the Minister that a copy of the dispute had been served on the respondent, without which the Minister would not act under section 65(1). Sections 65(2) and (3) entitled the Minister to seek further information and, on refusal, supply written reasons enabling an aggrieved party to move the Court. The applicant did not follow these steps, so no error on the record existed.
Whether the applicant established any recognised ground for review
No; neither error apparent on the record nor fresh evidence obtained with due diligence was established, and the complaints were properly matters of appeal
The respondent submitted that no known ground for review was established, which the Court agreed with. The judgment had found no evidence that form S was served on the respondent, and on a balance of probability upheld the respondent's case that employees had not been recruited. The applicant's attempt to have the Court change its opinion constituted grounds of appeal rather than review.
Whether the union had met the statutory threshold of recruitment of a simple majority of unionisable employees for recognition
Even if review were granted, the applicant failed to show recruitment of a simple majority of unionisable employees as required by section 54 of the Labour Relations Act
As submitted by the respondent and accepted by the Court, the applicant failed to demonstrate that a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable employees had been recruited, which is the statutory threshold for recognition under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. This reinforced the conclusion that the application lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- Dissatisfaction with a court's reasons and urging the court to change its opinion amounts to grounds of appeal, not grounds for review
- A union must show that form S was served upon the employer and, where the Minister refuses to appoint a conciliator, obtain written reasons for the refusal
Court orders
#- 1.The review application dated 17.09.2024 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Met-al Masters Engineering Limited (Cause 773 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1611 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (review notice of motion dated 17.09.2024 arising from judgment delivered 26.07.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1611/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.