Khamala v Design N-Scope Architects & Interior Designers Limited & 2 others (Cause 159 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 491 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to reconsider its own judgment on unpaid salary claims because review is only for obvious errors, not a second bite at the evidence.
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 Court should review its judgment of 15 February 2024 to award unpaid salaries (June 2018 to January 2019) and one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 2.Whether the grounds advanced disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
Key legal issues
#Whether the Motion disclosed a ground for review
The Motion failed because answering the unanswered claims would require re-evaluation of evidence, which review jurisdiction does not permit
The Court acknowledged that in the underlying judgment it had identified but not answered the questions on payment in lieu of notice and unpaid salary. However, to now answer them, it would need to examine pleadings, re-evaluate evidence and draw its own conclusions. The Court of Appeal authorities establish that review is confined to self-evident errors or omissions, not merits reconsideration. The exercise sought therefore fell outside review jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A review cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence and answer questions the court failed to answer; that is an appellate-type exercise outside the scope of review
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines to exercise its review jurisdiction
- 2.The Motion dated 22 April 2024 is dismissed
- 3.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (review of its own judgment of 15 February 2024)
Relief refused
#Review of the 15 February 2024 judgment to award unpaid salaries of Kshs 100,666.67 and one-month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 140,000
Granting the relief would require the Court to re-evaluate evidence and answer unanswered questions, an exercise outside the review jurisdiction
Costs
No order on 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 Court declines to exercise its review jurisdiction and dismisses the Motion dated 22 April 2024 with no order on costs.
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.
In the Court's humble view, and regrettably, that is an exercise outside the scope of the review jurisdiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khamala v Design N-Scope Architects & Interior Designers Limited & 2 others (Cause 159 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract (Motion Amended on 22 April 2024 within the Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/491/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.