Waweru v County Government Of Kiambu; Kiambu County Public Service Board (Interested Party) (Petition E136 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1645 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kiambu County's attempt to cancel a payment deal it had already agreed to in court failed because it knew the facts all along.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant established grounds (fraud, mistake, non-disclosure of material facts) warranting setting aside of the consent orders of 29.10.2024
- 2.Whether the alleged concealment of the date the petitioner's salary was stopped (19.12.2022 as opposed to November 2022) was a material non-disclosure
- 3.Whether the court is functus officio having recorded the consent decree
Key legal issues
#Grounds for setting aside a consent order
The applicant failed to establish any of the recognized grounds (fraud, non-disclosure of material facts, mistake, or any reason sufficient to set aside an agreement)
The court adopted the Brooke Bond Liebig principles. The alleged undisclosed fact - that the petitioner's salary was stopped on 19.12.2022 - was a decision made by or for the applicant itself, which the applicant knew or ought to have known when the consent was entered. Without an explanation of due diligence showing the fact could not have been discovered earlier, the non-disclosure ground fails. The dismissal of the petitioner was known to both parties when the consent was recorded.
Effect of the county HR manual on the consent decree
The petitioner's punishment under the laid-down procedure cannot be used by the applicant to nullify the payments the petitioner became entitled to under the consent orders
The applicant argued the consent could not be enforced pursuant to the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual. The court held that although the petitioner was punished per the laid-down procedure, this cannot be relied upon to nullify his entitlement under the consent decree, which was entered with full knowledge that he had been dismissed.
Functus officio
The applicant's functus officio objection by the petitioner stands effectively vindicated as no ground for review was established and the consent decree is final
The petitioner argued the court, having recorded the consent of 29.10.2024, was functus officio and the orders could only be appealed, not reviewed. The court did not make a standalone functus officio finding but dismissed the review application, leaving the consent decree standing and enforceable.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order can only be set aside on established grounds such as fraud, collusion, non-disclosure of sufficient material facts, mistake, or a reason that would enable the court to set aside an agreement
- A party seeking to set aside a consent order for non-disclosure must show that with due diligence the alleged new fact could not have been discovered before entering the consent; a fact originating from the applicant's own decision or knowledge cannot ground review
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 21.02.2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The consent orders of 29.10.2024 remain in effect and the petitioner is entitled to payment per the terms of the consent orders/decree
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; application under sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review of consent orders)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the orders issued on 29.10.2024
The applicant failed to establish any known ground for setting aside a consent order; the alleged non-disclosed fact was a decision made by or for the applicant and within its knowledge at all material times
Order that the petition dated 03.07.2023 be heard and determined on merit
No triable issue was established; the consent was entered with full knowledge that the petitioner had been dismissed
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the petitioner/respondent).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A consent order cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of the Court or if the consent was given without suficient material facts or in general for a reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement.
what is material is whether on the applicant's part, with due diligence, the alleged new fact could not be made accessed and invoked prior to entering the consent.
the alleged new material fact is found to have been a decision by or for the applicant and in the applicant's knowledge at all material times. As a ground for review or setting aside the consent judgment, the same will fail.
In conclusion the application is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The consent order as recorded states a suspension/disciplinary period of '11.11.2024 to 01.08.2024' with the later date first, an apparent internal date inconsistency
The applicant's grounds inconsistently refer to the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual as both 2019 and 2016 versions
Judgment ends with the sentence 'It is that the petitioner is entitled to pay per the terms of the consent orders', which appears to be a typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waweru v County Government Of Kiambu; Kiambu County Public Service Board (Interested Party) (Petition E136 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1645 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 03.07.2023 (Consent orders of 29.10.2024; Notice of Motion dated 21.02.2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1645/eng@2025-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.