Nyandiago & 3 others v Sibo Water & Sanitation Company Limited (Cause 57 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2856 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a review bid, confirming its new 2024 Procedure Rules now govern review applications and rejecting an increased notice pay award.
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 application for review is properly anchored under the applicable procedural rules
- 2.Whether there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of 21st June 2024 as to the notice pay award
- 3.Whether the award of Kshs. 198,000/- in lieu of notice should be reviewed and substituted with Kshs. 390,000/-
Key legal issues
#Applicable procedural rules for review
The 2024 Rules apply; the review is treated as brought under Rule 74 despite the application citing the 2016 Rules
The court held that as of 16th August 2024 the 2016 Rules had been supplanted by the 2024 Rules gazetted as Legal Notice No. 133 of 16th August 2024. The court therefore treated the application as if it referenced Rule 74, which sets out the grounds and procedure for review, rather than dismissing it for citing the wrong rules.
Error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent on the face of the record; the notice pay award of Kshs. 198,000/- was arithmetically correct (Kshs. 66,000/- monthly salary x 3 months' notice)
The contract provided a monthly salary of Kshs. 66,000/- with 3 months' written notice or payment in lieu. Simple arithmetic yields Kshs. 198,000/-. The judgment by Radido J. duly considered the monthly salary and notice period, so there was no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review under Rule 74(1)(b).
Legal principles established
#- The Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 (Legal Notice No. 133 of 16th August 2024) supplanted the 2016 Rules with effect from 16th August 2024 and govern review applications; the correct rule on review is Rule 74
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 13, 16 and 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment of 21st June 2024 substituting Kshs. 198,000/- notice pay with Kshs. 390,000/- and adjusting the total award
No error apparent on the face of the record; the award was a correct arithmetical application of the contract (salary Kshs. 66,000/- per month, 3 months' notice)
Costs
No order as to costs
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.
The Applicants have misapprehended the import of the 2016 Rules. As of August 16th 2024, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 had been supplanted by the 2024 Rules.
There was no error on the face of the record nor any apparent in the judgment, as to require correction by way of review.
The application lacks merit and thankfully for the Applicants, is unopposed so it can be dismissed with no order as to costs. Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment date referenced in the prayers is misprinted as '20123'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyandiago & 3 others v Sibo Water & Sanitation Company Limited (Cause 57 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2856 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 20th September 2024 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2856/eng@2024-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.