1. Following the ruling of this court delivered on the 30th January 2026 in this case, the 1st,2nd 3rd respondent filed application by way of notice of motion dated 16th March 2026 brought under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 16 and Rule 74 of the ELRC Rules 2024, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B & 3A and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, and all other enabling provisions of law) seeking for the following orders-
a) spent
b) . THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to vacate, discharge, review, vary and/or set aside its ruling of 30th January, 2026 in this matter as the same is grossly prejudicial to the Respondents.
c) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other orders as it deems fit and just for the ends of justice to be met.
d) THAT the costs of this Application be in the cause.
Grounds of the application
2. THAT the dispute before the Court concerns payroll third party check-off processes affecting teachers employed by the Teachers Service Commission and the alleged alteration of Union membership categories.
3. THAT the impugned Ruling requires the Union to reinstate membership status which is beyond the union's powers but lies squarely within the province of the individual teacher/trainer.
4. THAT the Petitioner concealed material facts which were crucial to the just determination of the issues.
5. THAT the Petitioner knowingly misled Court that KUPPET has initiator and/or administrator access on the TPay portal.
6. THAT the Petitioner failed to disclose that the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility (2021) (here referred to as the TPay guidelines 2021) which states that it's the employees' obligation to initiate all transactions with its preferred third party by uploading his/her payslip online through the TPay Portal.
7. THAT a the Petitioner misled this honourable Court that the trade union has powers to remove member from a third party (a trade union) or make any changes to a member's status well in fact guideline 9.4.6 and 9.4.7 provide that legitimate authority from the employee must be obtained. This is done by a prescribed Form of Notice to the Employer Authorising Deductions (hereinafter "Notice").
8. THAT the Petitioner misled the court to conclude that the Trade Union (third party) has power to change membership status of the teachers on the TPay Portal which remains the sole discretion of the individual users of the portal and not the trade union.
9. THAT the Petitioner in his Replying Affidavit dated 29th January 2026 under paragraph 10 states that KUPPET manipulated the accounts to alter the Petitioner's contribution. The aversion is completely fictitious as at no point does the TPay Guidelines allow the third party to propose any new deductions without the consent and authority of the individual teacher.
10. THAT the Petitioner further alleges in his affidavit that there was a difference in his deductions including the BBF contributions occasioned by the trade union. The Union wishes to bring to the Honourable Courts attention Guideline 9.4.2 of the TPay Guidelines (2021) which provides that it is the employee's obligation to complete the process by approving the captured transactions to be deducted against his or her salary before they are loaded on the payroll.
11. THAT the Petitioner confirms in his affidavit that the Union herein sent a circular reminding all members who were classified as agency members to make their payment of fees to their employer. This shows prior communication to the members to confirm that their affairs with the employer and the statutory deductions are in order.
12. THAT the Petitioner filed this suit two weeks later on 15th January 2026. The Petitioner did not produce any correspondence between him and the Trade Union or the employer to follow up on the issue with his membership status. Similarly the Petitioner did not demonstrate that upon noticing any irregularity he raised the same with the TSC for resolution. Nevertheless, he proceeded to file this suit prematurely with the intent to obstruct the union's elections.
13. THAT the Petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the union dues are not a stoppable transaction on the portal. However, the annexure shows clearly an icon that portrays a delete button under the status column for any deduction that the user/teacher intends to stop.
14. THAT the Petitioner has not brought any evidence before court to show that he followed up with the employer to make complaints on the difference in the check-off amounts.
15. . THAT the Petitioner voluntarily executed the application form for provision of check off services within the second schedule of the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility (2021) and is therefore aware on the systematic procedure of any change in a member's deductions.
16. THAT the Petitioner now wishes to disrupt the Trade union's National Elections on allegations that are unfounded without following the correct procedure to exhaust existing remedies.
17. THAT this Honourable Court failed to consider that the Trade union has no wherewithal to interfere in any way with the portal at any point.
18. THAT the impugned Ruling has given leeway to frivolous litigants to exercise forum shopping and callously demand recusal of all other judges who might be more fair in decision making.
19. THAT it is in the interest of justice that this Court do forthwith vacate/ set aside or review it's Ruling of 30th January, 2026 to prevent further miscarriage of justice.
20. THAT this Application has been brought without unreasonable delay.
21. The 2nd respondent, Akelo M.T Misori, swore an affidavit on 16th March 2026 in support of the application and annexed the following documents. 'AM-1' is a copy of the said Ruling; 'AM-2' is a copy of the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility 2021; 'AM-3' is a screenshot of the TPAY platform user interface; and 'AM-4' is a copy of the Circular dated 2nd January 2026 by the Secretary General for members to confirm eligibility. The deponent averred that union dues payable through the check-off system operate on a voluntary basis, and members interacting with the system are at liberty to approve or stop any deductions before they are submitted to the employer. (Please refer to para 4 of the Petitioner's Reply to the Further Replying Affidavit of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent, dated 29-01-2026 and sworn by the Petitioner.) The deponent further annexed clause 9.6.2 of the TPAY Guidelines, showing the Commission's mandate in addressing complaints, which has been extracted for ease; annexed hereto and marked 'AM-5'. (Annexed hereto and marked as 'AM-6' is the Contempt Application dated 7th March, 2026.) The deponent alleged that the impugned Ruling has emboldened opportunistic, frivolous litigants to harass and demand the recusal of any Judge who does not issue decisions in their favour. (Annexed hereto and marked as 'AM-7' is the Recusal Application in Meru ELRC.JR.E001/2026 (formerly Nairobi ELRC.JR.E049/2025) by Yvonne Mutindi Musyoka.)That the impugned Ruling has led to a raft of frivolous and opportunistic subsequent fresh matters filed before different stations of the Employment and Labour Relations Court relying directly on the misconceived reasoning and findings of the impugned Ruling. The mushrooming cases are as follows as at this date:-
i. Nakuru ELRC.PET/E009/2026: Murgor Kipkirui & Anne Chepkemoi Langat -v- Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), The Secretary General KUPPET, the National Elections Board KUPPET, The County Labour Office, Nakuru and The Registrar of Trade Unions. (Annexed and marked 'AM-8' is a copy of the Petition).
ii. The Honourable Justice Rika issued ex-parte orders that the Respondents be restrained from gazetting, swearing in, or allowing any persons elected at the KUPPEТ Nakuru Branch Elections on 7th February, 2026. Judge Rika's Ruling is premised upon this Court's impugned Ruling this court in paragraph 3 in absentia of the material facts. (Annexed and marked 'AM-9' is the Ruling).
iii. Narok ELRC.PET/E001/2026: Kipkoech Evans & Ngetich Geoffrey Cheruiyot -v- Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers, The Secretary General - KUPPET, The National Elections Board - KUPPET, The County Labour Officer - Narok County and The Registrar of Trade Unions (Annexed and marked 'AM-10' is a copy of the said Petition).
iv. That the Petitioners in the matter have referenced the impugned Ruling as the basis of their Petition which is further intended to mislead other judicial officers and subvert the course of justice. That Hon. Lady Justice Anna Mwaure issued Orders to the effect that there was no evidence as to this alleged reclassification and further invited the Petitioners to return after the election to report on the issue. After the elections the Petitioners withdrew the Petition altogether. This is testament to our position all along that the Union has not interfered with any classification of members. (Annexed and marked 'AM11' is the Court's Ruling of 13th March, 2025).
v. Nyeri ELRC.PET.E004/2026: (Formerly Nairobi PET.E068/2026) between David Ngugi, Peter Wathitu Wambugu and Paul Maina -v- Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) The Secretary General - KUPPET The National Elections Board -– KUPPET, The County Labour Officer Laikipia County, the Registrar of Trade Unions and David Gichuki. (Annexed and marked as 'AM-12' is the said Petition).
vi. Nakuru ELRC.JR/E001/2026: Republic -v- the Secretary-General KUPPET, Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Secretary, Nakuru County Labour Office, The Registrar of Trade Unions, Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers, Jeremiah Omboko Milemba and The Teachers Service Commission exparte Vivian Chepkemoi Towett (Annexed and marked as 'AM-13' is a copy of the JR Motion). In this matter, Justice Rika observed that there are numerous other similar claims lodged in different ELRC Stations, emanating from the same grievance. This poses a danger to the consistency of judicial orders and proceeded to transfer the Petition to this Court. (Annexed and marked as 'AM-14' is a copy of the said Ruling of Judge Rika).
vii. Nairobi ELRC.PET/E025/2026: John Thiuru Mbugua and Teresia Wanjiru Kiguru -v- Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), The County Labour Officer Kiambu County, The Registrar of Trade Unions and 15 Others (Annexed and marked 'AM-15' is a copy of the Petition alleging, inter alia, that those under 'Agency' were allowed to vote - obviously a claim stemming not from facts but from the impugned Ruling and 'AM-16' is an extract of the conservatory orders).
viii. Nakuru ELRC.JR/E002/2026: (Formerly Nairobi ELRC.JR E017/2026) Republic -v- Secretary General KUPPET, Branch Executive Secretary-Nakuru KUPPET Branch, Nakuru County Labour Officer, Registrar of Trade Unions, KUPPET, Hon. Omboko Milemba, TSC & Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Committee (Interested Party) Ex-Parte Daniel Rono (Annexed and marked 'AM-17' is a screengrab of the Judiciary CTS showing the court directions dated 11th March 2026).
ix. Nyeri ELRC.PET.E002/2026: Laban Mwenda; Bernard Ereneo; Lydia Gitehi; Kariuki Mary; Meroy Chege; Victor Seretta; Saraphina Micheni; James Murerwa; Brian Mobisa; Eric Gichuri -v- The Registrar of Trade Unions; Labour Union Officer; and Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) (Annexed and marked 'AM-18' is a copy of the Court's Orders dated 27th February 2026).
x. Meru ELRC.JR/E002/2026: Republic -v- Registrar of Trade Unions, the Secretary General, KUPРЕТ Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers Samburu KUPPET Branch Executive Committee Samburu Labour Officer Peter Ltantiran Letipila Samburu Acting Executive Secretary CEO/Secretary TRIPLE A ADVOCATES Teachers Service Commission ex-parte William Lengoyiap (Annexed and marked 'AM-19' is a copy of the said Supporting Affidavit sworn by William Lengoiyap on 5th March 2026).
22. The deponent contended that the common denominator in ALL the above cases is this Court's impugned Ruling of 30th January, 2026. We can only guess that they are just getting started. Nobody knows the kind of proliferation of lawsuits that is about to pour into the in-tray of the Hon. Jemmimah Wanza Keli as regards this matter of 'reclassification’.
Response
23. The application was opposed by the petitioner vide grounds of opposition dated 23rd March 2026 as follows-
a) THAT the Application is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, and an abuse of the process of the Court.
b) THAT the Respondents have not satisfied the legal threshold for review. They have neither demonstrated discovery of new and important matter which, despite due diligence, was not within their knowledge at the time the impugned ruling was delivered, nor have they identified any error apparent on the face of the record.
c) THAT the Applicant’s complaint is plainly directed at the merits of the Court’s reasoning, evaluation of evidence, and conclusions of law and fact. Such grievances fall within the province of an appeal and not review. The present application is therefore a disguised appeal, improperly inviting this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
d) THAT the Application is spent, moot, and overtaken by events, the orders complained of having related to an electoral process and timelines that have since been overtaken by subsequent events.
e) . THAT the Application seeks to reopen and reargue the merits of the ruling delivered on 30th January 2026 under the guise of review, variation, discharge and/or setting aside.
f) . THAT the Respondents have not established any lawful ground for review of the ruling of this Honourable Court.
g) THAT the matters raised in the Application were within the Respondents’ knowledge at all material times and do not constitute discovery of new and important evidence.
h) THAT the issues raised by the Respondents, if at all, fall within the province of an appeal and not review, and the present Application is therefore an impermissible attempt to substitute review for appeal.
i) THAT the Respondents did not file any appeal against the ruling of 30th January 2026 and cannot now invite this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
j) THAT the Application has been brought by parties who have not approached the Court with clean hands, there being a pending application for contempt against the Respondents for disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court.
k) .THAT the Application is vexatious, malicious, frivolous and intended to frustrate, delay and obstruct the just determination of the Petition and related proceedings.
l) THAT the intended joinder of the Teachers Service Commission at this stage is a belated afterthought designed to fill evidentiary and procedural gaps in the Respondents’ case after delivery of the ruling complained of.
m) THAT the Application does not disclose any sufficient cause or merit to warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion in favour of the Respondents.
n) THAT the Application ought to be dismissed with costs to the Petitioner.
24. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions.
The applicants’ submissions
25. These are the humble Submissions of the 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents who are the Applicants herein; in support of the Notice of Motion dated 16th March, 2026 seeking a review, variation and/or setting aside of this Honourable Court's Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026. The Application is brought pursuant to Article 50 and 159 of the Constitution, Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Rule 74 of the ELRC Rules 2024, Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicants respectfully submit that the only issue that presents for determination is Whether the Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026.
26. Whether the Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026. The court has jurisdiction to review its orders. Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the ELRC Rules confer jurisdiction on this Honourable Court to review its decisions where sufficient cause has been demonstrated. The Supreme Court in Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited affirmed that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to revisit decisions rendered in error or under misapprehension so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau held that review is available where the Court acted on a mistaken view of the law or facts.
27. The impugned ruling was issued under misapprehension of material facts - The Applicants submit that the impugned Ruling proceeded on the mistaken assumption that KUPPET possesses administrative and initiator control over the TPay payroll portal and can therefore alter members' status from bona fide membership to agency fee status. However, the uncontested evidence before Court demonstrates that:
a. The TPay system is administered exclusively by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC);
b. Transactions are initiated and authenticated by individual teachers through their own portal access;
c. The Union has neither backend nor frontend control over the TPay infrastructure; d. The applicable TSC Guidelines require employee authorization before any deductions can be effected, amended or stopped.
28. The Applicants therefore submit that the Court's finding requiring the Union to "reinstate" membership status imposed obligations incapable of performance because such powers lie with the individual employee within the TPay system and not the Union.
29. The petitioner failed to disclose material facts - The Applicants further submit that the Petitioner failed to disclose to Court the operational framework governing the TPay system, including the mandatory role played by individual teachers in initiating and approving payroll deductions. 11. The Court of Appeal in Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others held that orders obtained through material non-disclosure or concealment of facts cannot stand. 12. The Supreme Court in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others equally emphasized that litigants approaching Court must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts.
30. The Impugned Ruling Has Occasioned Serious Prejudice - The Supporting Affidavit demonstrates that the impugned Ruling has triggered multiple suits in different ELRC stations, all founded on the mistaken premise that KUPPET unlawfully reclassified members. 14. The Applicants have further demonstrated that the continued existence of the impugned orders threatens nullification of KUPPET National Elections in which the Branch representatives participated pursuant to the Labour Relations Act and the Union Constitution. This has resulted in substantial prejudice not only to the Union but also to thousands of members whose democratic participation in union affairs risks paralysis through multiplicity of suits and conflicting court orders. 16. The Court of Appeal in Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak & Another v Malcolm Bell observed that courts must exercise judicial authority in a manner that avoids absurdity, institutional paralysis and injustice.
31. In light of the foregoing we do humbly submit that we have clearly demonstrated sufficient cause warranting review and/or setting aside of the Ruling of 30th January 2026 on account of: a. Misapprehension of the operational structure of the TPay system; b. Material non-disclosure by the Petitioner; c. Imposition of obligations incapable of performance upon the Union; and d. Serious prejudice occasioned by proliferation of satellite litigation and disruption of trade union elections. This Honourable Court is therefore urged to exercise its review jurisdiction in the interests of justice, autonomy of trade unions and orderly administration of labour relations. We do urge this Honourable Court to allow the instant Application and thereby review, vary, vacate and/or set aside the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026; and to grant costs in the cause.
The petitioner’s submissions
32. The Application seeks the review, vacation, discharge, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 30 th January 2026. The Petitioner submits that the Application is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, frivolous, vexatious, malicious, and an egregious abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. Contrary to the Applicants' suggestion that this Honourable Court stands alone or erred in its Ruling, the Applicants themselves have annexed to their Supporting Affidavit evidence of at least fifteen (15) separate proceedings filed in various Employment and Labour Relations Court stations, including Nakuru, Nyeri, Narok, Meru, and Nairobi. In Nakuru ELRC.PET/E009/2026, Hon. Justice Rika issued ex-parte orders restraining KUPPET from gazetting election results. In Nyeri ELRC.PET/E006/2026, the Court nullified the Laikipia branch elections on grounds similar to those raised by the Petitioner. In Narok ELRC.PET/E001/2026 and Meru ELRC.JR/E002/2026, injunctive orders were issued against the Respondents. The common denominator in all these cases is not this Court's Ruling, as the Applicants disingenuously claim, but rather KUPPET's own misconduct – the arbitrary reclassification of members, unexplained reduction of cumulative contribution records, and disenfranchisement of members from union elections. That multiple judges of concurrent jurisdiction have independently reached similar conclusions on similar facts is powerful corroboration that this Court's Ruling was neither isolated nor erroneous, but correctly identified a nationwide pattern of misconduct by the Respondents. What is equally telling is the Applicant’s continued misconduct after these pronouncements by various court against their conduct. The Application is nothing more than a disguised appeal, dressed in the language of review, inviting this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision. This is a path that is firmly closed by binding precedent. The Applicants, having failed to file an appeal against the Ruling of 30th January 2026, cannot now be permitted to circumvent the appellate process through the backdoor of review. The Ruling of 30th January 2026 was delivered in the specific context of an impending electoral process. The Nairobi County Branch elections, which formed the substratum of the urgency, have since been conducted. The National Elections have also since taken place. The relief now sought by the Applicants; to vacate, discharge, review, vary and/or set aside the Ruling would serve no practical purpose whatsoever. The electoral processes that the Ruling was intended to protect have already concluded. This Court cannot turn back the clock. The doctrine of mootness is now well settled in Kenyan jurisprudence. In National Assembly of Kenya & Another v Institute of Social Accountability & 6 Others [2017] eKLR, the Court emphasized that a matter becomes moot where it no longer presents a live controversy capable of resolution by the court and where any determination would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties. The Court further observed that courts should not expend judicial resources on abstract, academic or hypothetical disputes. Similarly, in Daniel Kaminja & 3 Others (suing as Westlands Environmental Caretaker Group) v County Government of Nairobi [2019] eKLR, the Court held that a case becomes moot when supervening events deprive it of practical significance, such that any orders issued would be of no practical value. The Court reiterated that no court of law will knowingly act in vain and that courts are generally reluctant to make pronouncements on academic questions that serve no useful purpose. The same position was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in National Assembly & Another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 55 Others [2024] KECA876 (KLR), where the Court stated that where subsequent events have deprived the parties of the relief sought or rendered the dispute incapable of effective adjudication, the matter becomes moot and ought not to occupy the court’s time, since courts do not issue orders in vain. The Application is therefore not only without merit on the law, but it is also futile. Dismissal on grounds of mootness is fully justified. The Petitioner humbly invites this Honourable Court to dismiss the Application with costs and to affirm its Ruling of 30 th January, 2026.
33. The Petitioner filed this Petition challenging the unlawful, arbitrary, and unexplained reclassification of long-standing bona fide members of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Teachers (KUPPET), including the Petitioner himself, from full membership status to “agency fee” status. The Petitioner adduced before this Honourable Court compelling evidence demonstrating:-
a. That the Petitioner had cumulative union contributions in excess of Kshs. 51,552 reflected in earlier records, which were later drastically reduced to a meagre and unexplained figure.
b. That similarly, other affected members such as Atuti Jones Maroko (TSC No. 787980) had cumulative deductions exceeding Kshs. 54,114 which later fell inexplicably to Kshs. 1,039.95.
c. That the Petitioner and other affected members were simultaneously and without warning reclassified as “agency” members.
d. That despite being classified as “agency” members, BBF contributions continued to be deducted from their earnings – a glaring internal inconsistencythat exposes the bad faith of the Applicants’ conduct.
e. That the Applicants issued a circular dated 3rd January 2026 requiring persons placed under agency status to pay fees equivalent to thirteen weeks’ contributions and to obtain a collector’s receipt from the National Treasurer as a precondition to participating in Union elections.
34. This Honourable Court, after considering the pleadings and affidavits, delivered a Ruling on 30 th January 2026 granting conservatory and interim orders to protect the Petitioner’s constitutional and labour rights pending the hearing and determination of the Petition. 8. The Applicant has attempted to scandalize the court by making statements aimed at demeaning the stature of the Honourable court. is well settled. The contents of the Affidavit sworn by One Akelo M.T Misori are contemptuous, devoid of any merit and solely aim to blackmail and scandalize this court.
35. A party who makes allegations that a court has been misled or has acted on falsehoods without any evidentiary basis, like the Applicant herein, is engaging in conduct that tends to bring the court into disrepute. Such conduct should not be tolerated and is sufficient grounds to dismiss the Application.
36. Instead of complying with orders issued by the court, and instead of filing an appeal as is their right if aggrieved, the Applicants filed the instant Application on 16th March 2026, forty-five (45) days after the impugned Ruling. The Application is a collateral attack on the Ruling and an abuse of the Court’s process. The Application was filed out of the Appeal and Review timelines, and has no basis in law. The Applicants have raised numerous extraneous issues, including references to proceedings in other courts. These are irrelevant to the narrow question before this Court: whether the Applicants have met the threshold for review under Section 16 of the ELRC Act. This Court should decline the invitation to delve into collateral matters and instead focus on the Applicants' failure to establish any ground for review.
37. Legal framework governing review -The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to review its own decisions is well-established but is, by design, circumscribed and limited. It is not an open-ended invitation for disappointed litigants to re-argue their cases. Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act provides verbatim: “The Court shall have the power to review its judgments, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Rules made under section 29.” Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, and by extension Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (which the Applicants themselves have invoked), provide the specific, exhaustive grounds upon which review may be granted. These are: a. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree or order was made; b. Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or c. Any other sufficient reason.
38. The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR (also cited by the Applicants) rendered the definitive pronouncement on this subject, holding with unmistakable clarity: “A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. A party who is dissatisfied with a judgment on the merits has no recourse but to appeal.” (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court of Kenya in Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2020] eKLR affirmed that while courts possess inherent jurisdiction to revisit decisions to prevent a miscarriage of justice, this power must be exercised cautiously and only where a clear case for review has been made out. The Petitioner submits that the
[...truncated]
a) spent
b) . THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to vacate, discharge, review, vary and/or set aside its ruling of 30th January, 2026 in this matter as the same is grossly prejudicial to the Respondents.
c) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other orders as it deems fit and just for the ends of justice to be met.
d) THAT the costs of this Application be in the cause.
Grounds of the application
2. THAT the dispute before the Court concerns payroll third party check-off processes affecting teachers employed by the Teachers Service Commission and the alleged alteration of Union membership categories.
3. THAT the impugned Ruling requires the Union to reinstate membership status which is beyond the union's powers but lies squarely within the province of the individual teacher/trainer.
4. THAT the Petitioner concealed material facts which were crucial to the just determination of the issues.
5. THAT the Petitioner knowingly misled Court that KUPPET has initiator and/or administrator access on the TPay portal.
6. THAT the Petitioner failed to disclose that the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility (2021) (here referred to as the TPay guidelines 2021) which states that it's the employees' obligation to initiate all transactions with its preferred third party by uploading his/her payslip online through the TPay Portal.
7. THAT a the Petitioner misled this honourable Court that the trade union has powers to remove member from a third party (a trade union) or make any changes to a member's status well in fact guideline 9.4.6 and 9.4.7 provide that legitimate authority from the employee must be obtained. This is done by a prescribed Form of Notice to the Employer Authorising Deductions (hereinafter "Notice").
8. THAT the Petitioner misled the court to conclude that the Trade Union (third party) has power to change membership status of the teachers on the TPay Portal which remains the sole discretion of the individual users of the portal and not the trade union.
9. THAT the Petitioner in his Replying Affidavit dated 29th January 2026 under paragraph 10 states that KUPPET manipulated the accounts to alter the Petitioner's contribution. The aversion is completely fictitious as at no point does the TPay Guidelines allow the third party to propose any new deductions without the consent and authority of the individual teacher.
10. THAT the Petitioner further alleges in his affidavit that there was a difference in his deductions including the BBF contributions occasioned by the trade union. The Union wishes to bring to the Honourable Courts attention Guideline 9.4.2 of the TPay Guidelines (2021) which provides that it is the employee's obligation to complete the process by approving the captured transactions to be deducted against his or her salary before they are loaded on the payroll.
11. THAT the Petitioner confirms in his affidavit that the Union herein sent a circular reminding all members who were classified as agency members to make their payment of fees to their employer. This shows prior communication to the members to confirm that their affairs with the employer and the statutory deductions are in order.
12. THAT the Petitioner filed this suit two weeks later on 15th January 2026. The Petitioner did not produce any correspondence between him and the Trade Union or the employer to follow up on the issue with his membership status. Similarly the Petitioner did not demonstrate that upon noticing any irregularity he raised the same with the TSC for resolution. Nevertheless, he proceeded to file this suit prematurely with the intent to obstruct the union's elections.
13. THAT the Petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the union dues are not a stoppable transaction on the portal. However, the annexure shows clearly an icon that portrays a delete button under the status column for any deduction that the user/teacher intends to stop.
14. THAT the Petitioner has not brought any evidence before court to show that he followed up with the employer to make complaints on the difference in the check-off amounts.
15. . THAT the Petitioner voluntarily executed the application form for provision of check off services within the second schedule of the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility (2021) and is therefore aware on the systematic procedure of any change in a member's deductions.
16. THAT the Petitioner now wishes to disrupt the Trade union's National Elections on allegations that are unfounded without following the correct procedure to exhaust existing remedies.
17. THAT this Honourable Court failed to consider that the Trade union has no wherewithal to interfere in any way with the portal at any point.
18. THAT the impugned Ruling has given leeway to frivolous litigants to exercise forum shopping and callously demand recusal of all other judges who might be more fair in decision making.
19. THAT it is in the interest of justice that this Court do forthwith vacate/ set aside or review it's Ruling of 30th January, 2026 to prevent further miscarriage of justice.
20. THAT this Application has been brought without unreasonable delay.
21. The 2nd respondent, Akelo M.T Misori, swore an affidavit on 16th March 2026 in support of the application and annexed the following documents. 'AM-1' is a copy of the said Ruling; 'AM-2' is a copy of the TSC Guidelines on Management of Check-off Facility 2021; 'AM-3' is a screenshot of the TPAY platform user interface; and 'AM-4' is a copy of the Circular dated 2nd January 2026 by the Secretary General for members to confirm eligibility. The deponent averred that union dues payable through the check-off system operate on a voluntary basis, and members interacting with the system are at liberty to approve or stop any deductions before they are submitted to the employer. (Please refer to para 4 of the Petitioner's Reply to the Further Replying Affidavit of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent, dated 29-01-2026 and sworn by the Petitioner.) The deponent further annexed clause 9.6.2 of the TPAY Guidelines, showing the Commission's mandate in addressing complaints, which has been extracted for ease; annexed hereto and marked 'AM-5'. (Annexed hereto and marked as 'AM-6' is the Contempt Application dated 7th March, 2026.) The deponent alleged that the impugned Ruling has emboldened opportunistic, frivolous litigants to harass and demand the recusal of any Judge who does not issue decisions in their favour. (Annexed hereto and marked as 'AM-7' is the Recusal Application in Meru ELRC.JR.E001/2026 (formerly Nairobi ELRC.JR.E049/2025) by Yvonne Mutindi Musyoka.)That the impugned Ruling has led to a raft of frivolous and opportunistic subsequent fresh matters filed before different stations of the Employment and Labour Relations Court relying directly on the misconceived reasoning and findings of the impugned Ruling. The mushrooming cases are as follows as at this date:-
i. Nakuru ELRC.PET/E009/2026: Murgor Kipkirui & Anne Chepkemoi Langat -v- Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), The Secretary General KUPPET, the National Elections Board KUPPET, The County Labour Office, Nakuru and The Registrar of Trade Unions. (Annexed and marked 'AM-8' is a copy of the Petition).
ii. The Honourable Justice Rika issued ex-parte orders that the Respondents be restrained from gazetting, swearing in, or allowing any persons elected at the KUPPEТ Nakuru Branch Elections on 7th February, 2026. Judge Rika's Ruling is premised upon this Court's impugned Ruling this court in paragraph 3 in absentia of the material facts. (Annexed and marked 'AM-9' is the Ruling).
iii. Narok ELRC.PET/E001/2026: Kipkoech Evans & Ngetich Geoffrey Cheruiyot -v- Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers, The Secretary General - KUPPET, The National Elections Board - KUPPET, The County Labour Officer - Narok County and The Registrar of Trade Unions (Annexed and marked 'AM-10' is a copy of the said Petition).
iv. That the Petitioners in the matter have referenced the impugned Ruling as the basis of their Petition which is further intended to mislead other judicial officers and subvert the course of justice. That Hon. Lady Justice Anna Mwaure issued Orders to the effect that there was no evidence as to this alleged reclassification and further invited the Petitioners to return after the election to report on the issue. After the elections the Petitioners withdrew the Petition altogether. This is testament to our position all along that the Union has not interfered with any classification of members. (Annexed and marked 'AM11' is the Court's Ruling of 13th March, 2025).
v. Nyeri ELRC.PET.E004/2026: (Formerly Nairobi PET.E068/2026) between David Ngugi, Peter Wathitu Wambugu and Paul Maina -v- Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) The Secretary General - KUPPET The National Elections Board -– KUPPET, The County Labour Officer Laikipia County, the Registrar of Trade Unions and David Gichuki. (Annexed and marked as 'AM-12' is the said Petition).
vi. Nakuru ELRC.JR/E001/2026: Republic -v- the Secretary-General KUPPET, Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Secretary, Nakuru County Labour Office, The Registrar of Trade Unions, Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers, Jeremiah Omboko Milemba and The Teachers Service Commission exparte Vivian Chepkemoi Towett (Annexed and marked as 'AM-13' is a copy of the JR Motion). In this matter, Justice Rika observed that there are numerous other similar claims lodged in different ELRC Stations, emanating from the same grievance. This poses a danger to the consistency of judicial orders and proceeded to transfer the Petition to this Court. (Annexed and marked as 'AM-14' is a copy of the said Ruling of Judge Rika).
vii. Nairobi ELRC.PET/E025/2026: John Thiuru Mbugua and Teresia Wanjiru Kiguru -v- Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), The County Labour Officer Kiambu County, The Registrar of Trade Unions and 15 Others (Annexed and marked 'AM-15' is a copy of the Petition alleging, inter alia, that those under 'Agency' were allowed to vote - obviously a claim stemming not from facts but from the impugned Ruling and 'AM-16' is an extract of the conservatory orders).
viii. Nakuru ELRC.JR/E002/2026: (Formerly Nairobi ELRC.JR E017/2026) Republic -v- Secretary General KUPPET, Branch Executive Secretary-Nakuru KUPPET Branch, Nakuru County Labour Officer, Registrar of Trade Unions, KUPPET, Hon. Omboko Milemba, TSC & Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Committee (Interested Party) Ex-Parte Daniel Rono (Annexed and marked 'AM-17' is a screengrab of the Judiciary CTS showing the court directions dated 11th March 2026).
ix. Nyeri ELRC.PET.E002/2026: Laban Mwenda; Bernard Ereneo; Lydia Gitehi; Kariuki Mary; Meroy Chege; Victor Seretta; Saraphina Micheni; James Murerwa; Brian Mobisa; Eric Gichuri -v- The Registrar of Trade Unions; Labour Union Officer; and Kenya Union Of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) (Annexed and marked 'AM-18' is a copy of the Court's Orders dated 27th February 2026).
x. Meru ELRC.JR/E002/2026: Republic -v- Registrar of Trade Unions, the Secretary General, KUPРЕТ Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers Samburu KUPPET Branch Executive Committee Samburu Labour Officer Peter Ltantiran Letipila Samburu Acting Executive Secretary CEO/Secretary TRIPLE A ADVOCATES Teachers Service Commission ex-parte William Lengoyiap (Annexed and marked 'AM-19' is a copy of the said Supporting Affidavit sworn by William Lengoiyap on 5th March 2026).
22. The deponent contended that the common denominator in ALL the above cases is this Court's impugned Ruling of 30th January, 2026. We can only guess that they are just getting started. Nobody knows the kind of proliferation of lawsuits that is about to pour into the in-tray of the Hon. Jemmimah Wanza Keli as regards this matter of 'reclassification’.
Response
23. The application was opposed by the petitioner vide grounds of opposition dated 23rd March 2026 as follows-
a) THAT the Application is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, and an abuse of the process of the Court.
b) THAT the Respondents have not satisfied the legal threshold for review. They have neither demonstrated discovery of new and important matter which, despite due diligence, was not within their knowledge at the time the impugned ruling was delivered, nor have they identified any error apparent on the face of the record.
c) THAT the Applicant’s complaint is plainly directed at the merits of the Court’s reasoning, evaluation of evidence, and conclusions of law and fact. Such grievances fall within the province of an appeal and not review. The present application is therefore a disguised appeal, improperly inviting this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
d) THAT the Application is spent, moot, and overtaken by events, the orders complained of having related to an electoral process and timelines that have since been overtaken by subsequent events.
e) . THAT the Application seeks to reopen and reargue the merits of the ruling delivered on 30th January 2026 under the guise of review, variation, discharge and/or setting aside.
f) . THAT the Respondents have not established any lawful ground for review of the ruling of this Honourable Court.
g) THAT the matters raised in the Application were within the Respondents’ knowledge at all material times and do not constitute discovery of new and important evidence.
h) THAT the issues raised by the Respondents, if at all, fall within the province of an appeal and not review, and the present Application is therefore an impermissible attempt to substitute review for appeal.
i) THAT the Respondents did not file any appeal against the ruling of 30th January 2026 and cannot now invite this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
j) THAT the Application has been brought by parties who have not approached the Court with clean hands, there being a pending application for contempt against the Respondents for disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court.
k) .THAT the Application is vexatious, malicious, frivolous and intended to frustrate, delay and obstruct the just determination of the Petition and related proceedings.
l) THAT the intended joinder of the Teachers Service Commission at this stage is a belated afterthought designed to fill evidentiary and procedural gaps in the Respondents’ case after delivery of the ruling complained of.
m) THAT the Application does not disclose any sufficient cause or merit to warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion in favour of the Respondents.
n) THAT the Application ought to be dismissed with costs to the Petitioner.
24. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions.
The applicants’ submissions
25. These are the humble Submissions of the 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents who are the Applicants herein; in support of the Notice of Motion dated 16th March, 2026 seeking a review, variation and/or setting aside of this Honourable Court's Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026. The Application is brought pursuant to Article 50 and 159 of the Constitution, Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Rule 74 of the ELRC Rules 2024, Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicants respectfully submit that the only issue that presents for determination is Whether the Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026.
26. Whether the Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026. The court has jurisdiction to review its orders. Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the ELRC Rules confer jurisdiction on this Honourable Court to review its decisions where sufficient cause has been demonstrated. The Supreme Court in Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited affirmed that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to revisit decisions rendered in error or under misapprehension so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau held that review is available where the Court acted on a mistaken view of the law or facts.
27. The impugned ruling was issued under misapprehension of material facts - The Applicants submit that the impugned Ruling proceeded on the mistaken assumption that KUPPET possesses administrative and initiator control over the TPay payroll portal and can therefore alter members' status from bona fide membership to agency fee status. However, the uncontested evidence before Court demonstrates that:
a. The TPay system is administered exclusively by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC);
b. Transactions are initiated and authenticated by individual teachers through their own portal access;
c. The Union has neither backend nor frontend control over the TPay infrastructure; d. The applicable TSC Guidelines require employee authorization before any deductions can be effected, amended or stopped.
28. The Applicants therefore submit that the Court's finding requiring the Union to "reinstate" membership status imposed obligations incapable of performance because such powers lie with the individual employee within the TPay system and not the Union.
29. The petitioner failed to disclose material facts - The Applicants further submit that the Petitioner failed to disclose to Court the operational framework governing the TPay system, including the mandatory role played by individual teachers in initiating and approving payroll deductions. 11. The Court of Appeal in Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others held that orders obtained through material non-disclosure or concealment of facts cannot stand. 12. The Supreme Court in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others equally emphasized that litigants approaching Court must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts.
30. The Impugned Ruling Has Occasioned Serious Prejudice - The Supporting Affidavit demonstrates that the impugned Ruling has triggered multiple suits in different ELRC stations, all founded on the mistaken premise that KUPPET unlawfully reclassified members. 14. The Applicants have further demonstrated that the continued existence of the impugned orders threatens nullification of KUPPET National Elections in which the Branch representatives participated pursuant to the Labour Relations Act and the Union Constitution. This has resulted in substantial prejudice not only to the Union but also to thousands of members whose democratic participation in union affairs risks paralysis through multiplicity of suits and conflicting court orders. 16. The Court of Appeal in Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak & Another v Malcolm Bell observed that courts must exercise judicial authority in a manner that avoids absurdity, institutional paralysis and injustice.
31. In light of the foregoing we do humbly submit that we have clearly demonstrated sufficient cause warranting review and/or setting aside of the Ruling of 30th January 2026 on account of: a. Misapprehension of the operational structure of the TPay system; b. Material non-disclosure by the Petitioner; c. Imposition of obligations incapable of performance upon the Union; and d. Serious prejudice occasioned by proliferation of satellite litigation and disruption of trade union elections. This Honourable Court is therefore urged to exercise its review jurisdiction in the interests of justice, autonomy of trade unions and orderly administration of labour relations. We do urge this Honourable Court to allow the instant Application and thereby review, vary, vacate and/or set aside the Ruling delivered on 30th January 2026; and to grant costs in the cause.
The petitioner’s submissions
32. The Application seeks the review, vacation, discharge, variation and/or setting aside of the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 30 th January 2026. The Petitioner submits that the Application is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, frivolous, vexatious, malicious, and an egregious abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. Contrary to the Applicants' suggestion that this Honourable Court stands alone or erred in its Ruling, the Applicants themselves have annexed to their Supporting Affidavit evidence of at least fifteen (15) separate proceedings filed in various Employment and Labour Relations Court stations, including Nakuru, Nyeri, Narok, Meru, and Nairobi. In Nakuru ELRC.PET/E009/2026, Hon. Justice Rika issued ex-parte orders restraining KUPPET from gazetting election results. In Nyeri ELRC.PET/E006/2026, the Court nullified the Laikipia branch elections on grounds similar to those raised by the Petitioner. In Narok ELRC.PET/E001/2026 and Meru ELRC.JR/E002/2026, injunctive orders were issued against the Respondents. The common denominator in all these cases is not this Court's Ruling, as the Applicants disingenuously claim, but rather KUPPET's own misconduct – the arbitrary reclassification of members, unexplained reduction of cumulative contribution records, and disenfranchisement of members from union elections. That multiple judges of concurrent jurisdiction have independently reached similar conclusions on similar facts is powerful corroboration that this Court's Ruling was neither isolated nor erroneous, but correctly identified a nationwide pattern of misconduct by the Respondents. What is equally telling is the Applicant’s continued misconduct after these pronouncements by various court against their conduct. The Application is nothing more than a disguised appeal, dressed in the language of review, inviting this Honourable Court to sit on appeal over its own decision. This is a path that is firmly closed by binding precedent. The Applicants, having failed to file an appeal against the Ruling of 30th January 2026, cannot now be permitted to circumvent the appellate process through the backdoor of review. The Ruling of 30th January 2026 was delivered in the specific context of an impending electoral process. The Nairobi County Branch elections, which formed the substratum of the urgency, have since been conducted. The National Elections have also since taken place. The relief now sought by the Applicants; to vacate, discharge, review, vary and/or set aside the Ruling would serve no practical purpose whatsoever. The electoral processes that the Ruling was intended to protect have already concluded. This Court cannot turn back the clock. The doctrine of mootness is now well settled in Kenyan jurisprudence. In National Assembly of Kenya & Another v Institute of Social Accountability & 6 Others [2017] eKLR, the Court emphasized that a matter becomes moot where it no longer presents a live controversy capable of resolution by the court and where any determination would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties. The Court further observed that courts should not expend judicial resources on abstract, academic or hypothetical disputes. Similarly, in Daniel Kaminja & 3 Others (suing as Westlands Environmental Caretaker Group) v County Government of Nairobi [2019] eKLR, the Court held that a case becomes moot when supervening events deprive it of practical significance, such that any orders issued would be of no practical value. The Court reiterated that no court of law will knowingly act in vain and that courts are generally reluctant to make pronouncements on academic questions that serve no useful purpose. The same position was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in National Assembly & Another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 55 Others [2024] KECA876 (KLR), where the Court stated that where subsequent events have deprived the parties of the relief sought or rendered the dispute incapable of effective adjudication, the matter becomes moot and ought not to occupy the court’s time, since courts do not issue orders in vain. The Application is therefore not only without merit on the law, but it is also futile. Dismissal on grounds of mootness is fully justified. The Petitioner humbly invites this Honourable Court to dismiss the Application with costs and to affirm its Ruling of 30 th January, 2026.
33. The Petitioner filed this Petition challenging the unlawful, arbitrary, and unexplained reclassification of long-standing bona fide members of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Teachers (KUPPET), including the Petitioner himself, from full membership status to “agency fee” status. The Petitioner adduced before this Honourable Court compelling evidence demonstrating:-
a. That the Petitioner had cumulative union contributions in excess of Kshs. 51,552 reflected in earlier records, which were later drastically reduced to a meagre and unexplained figure.
b. That similarly, other affected members such as Atuti Jones Maroko (TSC No. 787980) had cumulative deductions exceeding Kshs. 54,114 which later fell inexplicably to Kshs. 1,039.95.
c. That the Petitioner and other affected members were simultaneously and without warning reclassified as “agency” members.
d. That despite being classified as “agency” members, BBF contributions continued to be deducted from their earnings – a glaring internal inconsistencythat exposes the bad faith of the Applicants’ conduct.
e. That the Applicants issued a circular dated 3rd January 2026 requiring persons placed under agency status to pay fees equivalent to thirteen weeks’ contributions and to obtain a collector’s receipt from the National Treasurer as a precondition to participating in Union elections.
34. This Honourable Court, after considering the pleadings and affidavits, delivered a Ruling on 30 th January 2026 granting conservatory and interim orders to protect the Petitioner’s constitutional and labour rights pending the hearing and determination of the Petition. 8. The Applicant has attempted to scandalize the court by making statements aimed at demeaning the stature of the Honourable court. is well settled. The contents of the Affidavit sworn by One Akelo M.T Misori are contemptuous, devoid of any merit and solely aim to blackmail and scandalize this court.
35. A party who makes allegations that a court has been misled or has acted on falsehoods without any evidentiary basis, like the Applicant herein, is engaging in conduct that tends to bring the court into disrepute. Such conduct should not be tolerated and is sufficient grounds to dismiss the Application.
36. Instead of complying with orders issued by the court, and instead of filing an appeal as is their right if aggrieved, the Applicants filed the instant Application on 16th March 2026, forty-five (45) days after the impugned Ruling. The Application is a collateral attack on the Ruling and an abuse of the Court’s process. The Application was filed out of the Appeal and Review timelines, and has no basis in law. The Applicants have raised numerous extraneous issues, including references to proceedings in other courts. These are irrelevant to the narrow question before this Court: whether the Applicants have met the threshold for review under Section 16 of the ELRC Act. This Court should decline the invitation to delve into collateral matters and instead focus on the Applicants' failure to establish any ground for review.
37. Legal framework governing review -The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to review its own decisions is well-established but is, by design, circumscribed and limited. It is not an open-ended invitation for disappointed litigants to re-argue their cases. Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act provides verbatim: “The Court shall have the power to review its judgments, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Rules made under section 29.” Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, and by extension Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (which the Applicants themselves have invoked), provide the specific, exhaustive grounds upon which review may be granted. These are: a. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree or order was made; b. Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or c. Any other sufficient reason.
38. The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR (also cited by the Applicants) rendered the definitive pronouncement on this subject, holding with unmistakable clarity: “A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. A party who is dissatisfied with a judgment on the merits has no recourse but to appeal.” (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court of Kenya in Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2020] eKLR affirmed that while courts possess inherent jurisdiction to revisit decisions to prevent a miscarriage of justice, this power must be exercised cautiously and only where a clear case for review has been made out. The Petitioner submits that the
[...truncated]