Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employees v Bomas of Kenya Limited (Cause 1516 of 2018) [2026] KEELRC 158 (KLR) (28 January 2026) (Ruling)

Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employees v Bomas of Kenya Limited (Cause 1516 of 2018) [2026] KEELRC 158 (KLR) (28 January 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 158 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause 1516 of 2018 CN Baari, J January 28, 2026 Between Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employees Claimant and Bomas of Kenya Limited Respondent Ruling 1.Before the court is the Claimant’s Notice of Motion application dated 16th July, 2025, brought pursuant to Sections 80 of the [Civil Procedure Act](/akn/ke/act/1924/3), Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 74 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024. The Claimant/Applicant seeks the following orders: -i.Spentii.That, an order do issue to award the herein grievant service gratuity for 32 years of his service with the herein Respondent amounting to Ksh.2,001,048.00/= pursuant to the provisions of Clause No. 28.0 of the herein parties CBA.iii.That the Honourable Court do review the judgment delivered on the 4th day of July, 2025 by awarding the payment of half salaries and house allowances due to the grievant for the entire period of the actual interdiction dating from the 5th February, 2015 up to the 8th April, 2020 when the criminal case was concluded pursuant to the provisions of the interdiction letter dated 5th February, 2015.iv.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by grounds on the face and the affidavit of Mr. Job Mucuha, the Secretary General of the Applicant. 3.The Applicant avers that there is an error apparent on the face of the record arising from the Honourable Court’s failure to award the herein Grievant service gratuity as provided for under Clause No. 28.0 of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) annexed to the Memorandum of Claim dated 14th November, 2018. 4.It avers further that the said failure amounts to an oversight on the part of the Court in that it did not consider the provisions of Clause No. 28.0 of the parties’ CBA, duly annexed to the Claimant’s Memorandum of Claim dated 14th November, 2018, and marked as “APP.1”, which expressly provides as follows: -“All unionisable employees of Bomas of Kenya shall qualify for the above after completing three (3) years continuous service with the Company and shall be entitled to forty-five (45) working days’ pay for each completed year of service.” 5.It is the Applicant’s assertion that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in paragraphs 60 and 63 of the Judgment, as the Court failed to consider Clause 28.0 of the CBA evidencing the Grievant’s entitlement to gratuity, and further limited the award of half salary to 12 months despite the interdiction period running from 5th February, 2015 to 8th April, 2020, during which the Grievant was entitled to half salary and house allowance. 6.The Respondent opposed the Motion vide grounds of opposition dated 21st October, 2025. 7.It is the Respondent’s position that the application is misconceived, frivolous, and an abuse of the court process as it seeks to relitigate issues already fully considered and determined by the Court. It avers further that the CBA was duly filed and considered, and the Court correctly found that gratuity is not payable as of right and was not proved under the CBA or any binding employment term. 8.The Respondent states that the application fails to meet the threshold for review under Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, for want of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason. 9.It is the Respondent’s assertion that the application improperly invites the Court to sit on appeal over its own decision by re-litigating the issue of gratuity, contrary to the settled principles governing review. It avers further that dissatisfaction with the Court’s lawful exercise of discretion does not constitute an error warranting review. 10.The Respondent maintains that the application undermines the finality of litigation and that the Claimant’s proper remedy lies in an appeal, not a review. 11.Both parties filed submissions, which have been duly considered. Determination 12.I have considered the motion application, the grounds and affidavit in support thereof, and the rival submissions. 13.Order 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 states as follows in regard to review: -“(A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, may within reasonable time, apply for a review of the judgment or ruling:-a.if there is discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by that person at the time when the decree was passed or the order made;b.on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;c.if the judgment or ruling requires clarification, ord.for any other sufficient reason….” 14.Section 16 of the [Employment and Labour Relations Court Act](/akn/ke/act/2011/20) and the captioned procedure empower this court to review its judgments, awards, orders, or decrees. 15.An application for review is not a right of a party, but an equitable remedy which calls for a basis to be laid by the applicant to the satisfaction of the court. A request for review is likewise not an appeal or a chance for the applicant to re-argue his/her application. 16.The Applicant seeks that the court award the grievant gratuity in accordance with Clause 28 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties herein. In the subject judgment, the court had indicated that the Claimant had not led evidence to show that the grievant was entitled to gratuity. 17.A look at the CBA between the parties and specifically Clause 28, it is apparent that the Clause entitles the grievant herein to gratuity having been a permanent employee of the Respondent. The CBA was produced in evidence in the matter. 18.In the premise, the court notes the oversight in the said judgment as the evidence was, as correctly submitted by the Applicant, already on record. Further, the mistake in the judgment regarding the prayer for gratuity is self-evident and does not require re-arguing of the case. 19.In light of the foregoing, I find merit in the prayer for review in respect of this prayer, and I proceed to review the judgment rendered on 4th July, 2025, by awarding the grievant gratuity in accordance with the subject CBA. 20.On the prayer to review the award of half salary and house allowance for the interdiction period, what the court awarded is what the Claimant sought under the Amended Memorandum of claim. Parties are bound by their pleadings, and the court finds no basis to review the award. 21.In the final analysis, the Motion partly succeeds, and the Judgment delivered on 4th July, 2025, in this matter be and is hereby reviewed as follows: -i.That an order be and is hereby issued awarding the grievant herein a service gratuity for 32 years of service with the Respondent, in the sum of Ksh.2,001,048/=ii.I make no orders on costs. 22.Orders accordingly. **SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.****C. N. BAARI****JUDGE** Appearance:Mr. Muchuha present for the Claimant/ApplicantMs.Okelloh h/b for Mr. Ouma for the RespondentMs. Esther S -C/A