Ramogi v Great Lakes University of Kisumu; Odhiambo t/a Jenks Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Cause 2 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1804 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can fix clerical and arithmetic mistakes in its own rulings after judgment, and corrected sums in a debt execution dispute.
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 is functus officio so as to be unable to review its orders of 18th February 2025
- 2.Whether there are errors apparent on the face of the record (typographical and arithmetical) in the Ruling of 18th February 2025 warranting review
- 3.Whether the recalculation of the decretal sum is fit for grant
- 4.Whether the motion should be dismissed for inordinate delay and abuse of process
Key legal issues
#Functus officio and the slip rule
The Court is not functus officio; Rule 75 confers a power to rectify clerical mistakes in addition to review under Rule 74, and the Court may act on its own motion.
Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure Rules) 2024 permits the Court, at the request of parties or on its own motion, to cause any clerical mistake, incidental error or omission to be rectified. This power exists in addition to review under Rule 74. Because that corrective power remains available after judgment, the objections by the Judgment Debtor and the Interested Party that the Court was functus officio failed, and the typographical error in the decree date could be corrected even without an application.
Errors apparent on the face of the record
The Ruling of 18th February 2025 contained a typographical error in the decree date (2nd instead of 22nd November 2022) and arithmetical errors in the decretal sums, both amenable to correction.
The Court found that the correct date of the decree was 22nd November 2022 and that the sums indicated in the Ruling were wrong: the balance owed after deducting the auction proceeds of the pick-up was Kshs. 264,986/-, and the Interested Party was required to refund Kshs. 340,000/-. These were treated as arithmetical errors apparent on the face of the record, not a challenge to the Court's substantive findings, and were therefore correctable.
Legal principles established
#- A court retains power to rectify clerical mistakes, incidental errors or omissions notwithstanding that it has delivered judgment, so it is not functus officio.
- A court may correct clerical errors on its own motion under the slip rule even without an application by a party.
Court orders
#- 1.Correction of the typographical error in the date of the decree from 2nd November 2022 to 22nd November 2022
- 2.Correction of the arithmetical errors in the sums stated in the Ruling: the balance after deducting the auction proceeds of the pick-up being Kshs. 264,986/-, and the refund of Kshs. 340,000/- by the Interested Party
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure Rules) 2024, Rules 74 and 75 (review and slip rule)
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 has reviewed the orders made and notes fundamental errors in the date of the decree where instead of 22nd November 2022, the same is indicated as 2nd November 2022.
The sums in the Ruling of the Court therefore were erroneous and therefore amenable to correction as being arithmetical errors. The Court therefore grants the motion with no order as to costs.
This is an error the Court could correct even without application of a party under the slip rule.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit and the motion are not stated in the judgment text.
The Judgment Debtor's asserted grounds appear truncated, introduced by a colon with no enumerated grounds following.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramogi v Great Lakes University of Kisumu; Odhiambo t/a Jenks Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Cause 2 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1804 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1804/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.