Ng’ang’a v Sinopec International Petrolium Services Corporations Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 57 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 1978 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court corrected its own judgment, ruling interest on an employment award must run from the trial court's 2017 judgment, not 2024.
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 interest as awarded by the Court (from the date of its own judgment rather than the trial court's judgment) was proper
- 2.Whether the application for review is merited in the circumstances, i.e. whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground for review
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court erred in awarding interest from the date of its own judgment when the trial court had awarded interest from the date of its judgment of 6th December 2017
The Court found this was an error apparent on the face of the record because the matter was not one the Court was invited to consider, and the trial court's award on interest should have been left undisturbed.
The Applicant had been awarded interest by the trial court from the date of its judgment; no appeal or cross-appeal challenged that award, and interest was not an issue canvassed in the appeal. By awarding interest only from the date of its own judgment, the Court effectively varied the trial court's award without being moved to do so and without hearing the Applicant. This amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Whether the review application satisfied the statutory grounds for review
The application was merited and was allowed.
The Respondent argued that the stringent conditions for review were not met and that the Court was functus officio, and relied on authority restricting review to discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason made without unreasonable delay. The Court, however, found an error apparent on the face of the record in its own judgment of 26th June 2024 regarding the commencement date of interest and allowed the review on that basis.
Legal principles established
#- A court on review may correct an error apparent on the face of the record where it varied a lower court's award on a matter it was not invited to determine
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment of the Court dated 26th June 2024 is reviewed
- 2.Costs of the appeal and of the lower court are to be borne by the Respondents
- 3.Interest on the award is payable with effect from the date of judgment of the lower court
- 4.Costs of this application awarded to the applicant (costs in this appeal)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower court (trial court, court not specified)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations 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.
I find that indeed, this was an error, the applicant having been awarded costs at the lower court and a matter at which this court was not invited to consider and which matter should be allowed to stay as ordered at the lower court.
I therefore find the application is merited and I allow it and review my judgment and indicate that costs of the appeal and of the lower court will be borne by the Respondents and interest be paid with efiect from the date of judgment of the lower court. Costs in this appeal.
" the court, under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act has a wide measure of discretion on the question of interest."
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the subject of the review as 'costs' where the application and submissions concern interest on the award, conflating the two concepts.
The judge who delivers this ruling (Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa) is the same judge whom the application states delivered the lower court's trial judgment, yet the ruling treats the lower court judgment as that of another court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ng’ang’a v Sinopec International Petrolium Services Corporations Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 57 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 1978 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1978/eng@2024-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.