Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E097 OF 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2720 (KLR)

Johin Ososi v Cyka Manpower Ltd

Employment & Labour Relations Court
1 October 2026
HWHellen Wasilwa
4,237 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed a review application because the applicant claimed new evidence existed but never actually showed it to the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, a former employee of the Respondent whose claim was dismissed by a ruling delivered on 22nd January 2026, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 29th April 2026 seeking stay of execution, review/vacation of that ruling, and leave to file a further affidavit. He argued he was never served with the Respondent's replying affidavit and submissions raising particulars of fraud and an alternative award by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, and that he had discovered new evidence. The Respondent opposed, contending the ruling date was taken by consent, the Applicant had access to the Case Tracking System, the application was filed over three months late, and the Court was functus officio absent statutory review grounds. Both parties filed extensive submissions citing Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule 1, and the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, together with numerous authorities on the narrow scope of review. Wasilwa J held that the Court has jurisdiction to review under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, but that an applicant relying on discovery of new and important matter must exhibit that material in the supporting affidavit. The Applicant had only averred to the existence of new evidence without placing it before the Court, leaving the Court unable to assess its weight or genuineness. The application was found unproved and unmerited and dismissed with an order of costs. The judgment did not resolve the estoppel and functus officio arguments on the merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant demonstrated discovery of new and important matter or evidence under Rule 74(1)(a)

Holding

The application fails because the alleged new evidence was never exhibited before the court.

Reasoning

The court accepted it has jurisdiction to review under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024. However, under Rule 74(1)(a), any new and important matter or evidence relied upon must be exhibited in the supporting affidavit. The Applicant merely averred that new material existed in the Respondent's possession but placed no such evidence before the court, leaving the court unable to assess its weight, genuineness or relevance.

p. 20

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for review on the ground of discovery of new and important matter must exhibit that material as proof of the discovery; mere averment is insufficient.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 29th April 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.There shall be an order of costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Johin Ososi v Cyka Manpower Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E097 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2720/eng@2026-10-01

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