Kariuki & another v Multi Packaging Ltd t/a Print Pak (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1030 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1740 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court corrected its own judgment maths, raising two unfairly fired workers' awards to Kshs 373,195.63 each.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the judgment of November 3, 2023 contains an arithmetical error and omission apparent on the face of the record warranting review
- 2.Whether the application for review should be allowed and the judgment rectified
Key legal issues
#Whether an arithmetical error and omission of part of an award amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Rule 33
Yes. The court found an omission of the service pay award and an arithmetical error in calculating underpayments, which are grounds for review under the ELRC Procedure Rules.
Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016 permits review on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The Applicants relied on this ground. On perusal, the court found that service pay for 9 years, expressly awarded at paragraph 49 of the judgment, was not captured at the final paragraph, and the underpayments figure contained a mathematical error. Such omission and error fall squarely within the review grounds and required no elaborate argument to establish.
The scope of review as distinguished from appeal - whether erroneous legal conclusions can be reviewed
Review cannot be used as a second bite at the cherry; it is confined to self-evident errors, not disagreement with the court's legal reasoning.
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau, the court restated that a review lies to correct apparent errors or omissions that are self-evident. It is not a sufficient ground that another judge could have taken a different view, or that the court misconstrued a statute or reached an erroneous conclusion of law. The court applied this to conclude that the arithmetical error and omission before it were proper grounds for review.
Legal principles established
#- A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court, provided the error is self-evident and does not require elaborate argument.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is allowed
- 2.The judgment delivered on November 3, 2023 is altered so that each Claimant is awarded: one month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 11,818/=; underpayments Kshs 205,470.94/=; service pay for 9 years Kshs 61,362.69/=; 8 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination Kshs 94,544/=; total Kshs 373,195.63/= for each Claimant
- 3.Any subsequent decree arising therefrom shall reflect that alteration
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12 and 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
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.
There was clearly an omission on the part of the court and this omission is one of the grounds for a review of a judgement or decree under the rules herein.
I accordingly allow the application for review with the result that the judgement delivered on November 3, 2023 is altered to read that the Claimants are entitled to the following:
Any subsequent decree arising therefrom shall accordingly refiect that alteration.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites 'Section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, 2011' as the guiding law on review, but the application was brought under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011; the quoted provision ('The Court shall have power to review its judgements, awards, orders or decrees in accordance with the Rules') corresponds to the ELRC Act.
The Applicants sought rectification of the total award to Kshs 320,946.67 for each Claimant, but the court, on its own recalculation including a further error in the underpayments figure, altered the total to Kshs 373,195.63 - a different figure than that sought.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & another v Multi Packaging Ltd t/a Print Pak (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1030 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1740 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 8th January, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1740/eng@2024-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.