Ngovu & 11 others v Tana & Athi River Development Authority & another (Cause 967 of 2010) [2026] KEELRC 1682 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

Ngovu & 11 others v Tana & Athi River Development Authority & another (Cause 967 of 2010) [2026] KEELRC 1682 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

The Applicants failed to prove any ground for review. The alleged new evidence was not shown to have been unavailable despite due diligence, the supposed omission of the 2nd Respondent was an attack on the merits of the 2018 judgment and therefore a matter for appeal, and the application was filed after an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELRC 1682 (KLR)
Parties
Claimants/applicants: SAMUEL NGOVU & 11 OTHERS; 1st Respondent: TANA & ATHI RIVER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; 2nd Respondent: TANATHI WATERSERVICES BOARD
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 967 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Review Application / Post Judgment Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed as devoid of merit
Judges
["CN Baari"]
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of the Record, New and Important Evidence, Delay in Bringing Review, Unfair Termination Compensation, Appellate Process Versus Review
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Error Apparent on the Face of the Record New and Important Evidence Delay in Bringing Review Unfair Termination Compensation Appellate Process Versus Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMUEL NGOVU & 11 OTHERS

Claimants/applicants

TANA & ATHI RIVER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1st Respondent

TANATHI WATERSERVICES BOARD

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Review Application / Post Judgment Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant met the threshold for review of the judgment delivered on 20th December 2018
  2. 2 Whether there was discovery of new and important evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to prove any ground for review. The alleged new evidence was not shown to have been unavailable despite due diligence, the supposed omission of the 2nd Respondent was an attack on the merits of the 2018 judgment and therefore a matter for appeal, and the application was filed after an inordinate unexplained delay of about eight years. Review jurisdiction was therefore not available.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed as devoid of merit

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2026 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.