Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2025] KEELRC 1978 (KLR)

Ngigi v Kenya National Union of Teachers; Teachers Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6549 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1978 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 July 2025
AMANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE
1,696 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to reopen a KNUT employee's case because a single circular, without supporting schedules, was not enough new evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant, whose suit against the Respondent had been partially determined in a judgment delivered on 14th March 2024 awarding Kshs. 1,599,280.50 for unremitted pension, WCPS contributions and unpaid salaries while declining claims for service gratuity and terminal benefits for want of authentic documentation, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 27th August 2024. He sought leave to adduce new and additional evidence, namely a circular dated 1st December 2017 forwarding the KNUT Remuneration Packages for KNUT Branch Staff 2017, and a review of the portion of the judgment declining terminal dues, service gratuity and unpaid leave days. The application was brought under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The Respondent and Interested Party, though served, filed no response; the application was disposed of by written submissions. The court noted the new ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 published on 16th August 2024, whose Rule 74(1) governs review on grounds including discovery of new and important matter not producible despite due diligence. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in D. J. Lowe & Company Limited v Banque Indosuez on the caution required in review applications founded on newly discovered evidence, the court held that the signed circular alone did not advance the Applicant's case: it referenced revised remuneration but was unaccompanied by the Revised Remuneration Schedule 2017, and no formula for calculating terminal dues or service gratuity was offered. The unpaid leave claim from 2013 to 2020 remained unestablished. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their respective costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the new circular dated 1st December 2017 constitutes discovery of new and important matter warranting review

Holding

No - the circular alone, without the accompanying revised Remuneration Schedule and a calculation formula, did not satisfy the review criteria in Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Reasoning

The court's prior judgment had rejected an unsigned remuneration document as inauthentic. The newly produced letter signed by the Secretary General referred to revised remuneration effected from 1st July 2017 but did not clarify the revised remuneration, the formula for calculating terminal dues and service gratuity, or establish unpaid leave days. No other new documents supported the claims.

p. 4
02

Whether the unpaid leave claim from 2013 to 2020 could be revived on review

Holding

No - the claim was not tenable and no new evidence showed the court erred in declining it initially

Reasoning

The Applicant was required to set out the days leave applied for but denied by the Respondent. The unpaid leave claim spanning 2013 to 2020 was not supported by any documents or new evidence produced since the judgment was written to demonstrate error in the original determination.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Review on the basis of newly discovered evidence requires the applicant to demonstrate that despite due diligence, the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was passed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th August 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to meet their respective costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 33 / Rule 33(1)(a)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (Legal Notice No. 133 dated 16th August 2024)Rule 74(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Stephen Marira Mwangi V David Njiri Stephen & 7 Others
    [2019] KEELC 3843 (KLR)
  • D. J. Lowe & Company Limited V Banque Indosuez
    [1998] KECA 108 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (now Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngigi v Kenya National Union of Teachers; Teachers Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6549 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1978 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1978/eng@2025-07-02

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