Mutiga v Proto Energy Limited (Cause E939 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 115 (KLR) (23 January 2026) (Ruling)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 115
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 115 (KLR)
- Decided
- 23 January 2026
The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence sought by the Claimant was not new and important, and that the Claimant did not act with due diligence in discovering it.
Facts
The Claimant filed a motion seeking to set aside the Employment and Labour Relations Court's judgment dismissing her claim and allowing the Respondent's counterclaim. The Claimant alleged that new and important evidence was discovered after the judgment was delivered.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant has satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of an order of review.
- Whether the new evidence is new and important, and if so, whether the Claimant acted with due diligence and the evidence was not within their knowledge at the relevant time.
Reasoning
The Court ruled that the evidence sought by the Claimant was not new and important, as it was already in the Claimant's possession and was overlooked during the hearing. The Court also found that the Claimant did not act with due diligence in discovering the evidence.
Outcome
The motion for review and setting aside of the judgment was dismissed.
Orders
- The motion for review and setting aside of the judgment was dismissed.
- The costs of the application were awarded to the Respondent.
Authorities cited
Cases cited (2)
- Rose Kaiza v Angelo Mpanju Kaiza [2009] KECA 422 (KLR)
- Mulla’s commentary on provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 15th Edition, at page 2726
Loading judgment…