Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 10th March 2025

Emojong v Henkel Chemicals (EA) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1910 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2015 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 July 2025
1,791 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court cut a worker's award by Kshs 85,000 because a signed discharge voucher proved notice pay, but salary without written proof stayed payable.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The employer (Respondent/Applicant) moved the ELRC by Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2025 seeking stay of execution and review of the court's judgment of 3rd February 2025, by which the termination of the Claimant's employment was declared unfair and the Claimant awarded Kshs. 170,000 as salary for July 2017 and pay in lieu of notice (within a larger award). The Applicant argued that the Claimant had been paid these sums at separation on 21st August 2017, evidenced by a payslip, a cheque and a signed discharge voucher, and relied on Rule 74(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules and authority on the court's wide discretionary power of review. The Claimant opposed, denying receipt of the payments, asserting the Applicant had not discharged its evidentiary burden, and relying on authority that review requires a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record. The court examined the discharge voucher, which recorded the Claimant's admission of receipt of Kshs. 155,112/- expressly including one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 85,000) and pay for days worked in August 2017, but containing no indication of payment for July 2017. The court therefore declined to review the award of July 2017 salary but allowed review in part in respect of notice pay, reducing the total judgment sum by Kshs. 85,000 and fixing the final figure at Kshs. 595,000, with the remainder of the judgment unchanged. Judgment delivered virtually at Nairobi on 9th July 2025 by Hellen Wasilwa, Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient reason or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the judgment of 3rd February 2025 awarding the Claimant Kshs. 170,000 for July 2017 salary and pay in lieu of notice, given the asserted payment at separation

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant met the threshold for review under Rule 74(1) ELRC (Procedure) Rules

Holding

The threshold was met only in respect of the notice pay, which the discharge voucher showed had been paid; it was not met for the July 2017 salary.

Reasoning

The court examined the discharge voucher and cheque produced by the Applicant. The voucher showed the Claimant admitted receipt of Kshs. 155,112/-, which expressly included one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 85,000) and pay for days worked in August 2017. Nothing in the documents indicated payment of July 2017 salary. Accordingly, the court found sufficient reason to review the award only as to notice pay, reducing the judgment sum by Kshs. 85,000 to Kshs. 595,000, and declined to review the July 2017 award.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish
  • A party asserting payment bears the evidentiary burden of proving it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Review of the judgment excluding one month's salary in lieu of notice from the total amount payable
  2. 2.Total judgment sum reviewed downwards by Kshs. 85,000 (notice pay)
  3. 3.Final judgment figure fixed at Kshs. 595,000
  4. 4.Rest of the judgment remains the same
  5. 5.Application for review in respect of July 2017 salary dismissed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 74(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, read with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Review of the award of salary for July 2017

The discharge voucher signed by the Claimant did not evidence payment for July 2017, only notice pay and August days worked

p. 4

Declaration that the Claimant is not entitled to any award under the head of salary for July 2017 and pay in lieu of notice

Only the notice pay component was found to have been paid; the July 2017 salary award stood

p. 4

Costs

No costs order made in the judgment; the Applicant had sought that there be no orders for 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.

I however review my judgment and exclude for the total amount payable 1 months’ salary in lieu of notice.
p. 4Review granted in part - notice pay
The final judgment figure is now reviewed to be settled at kshs 595,000/-.
p. 4Final orders - reviewed judgment sum
The rest of the judgment remain the same.
p. 4Final orders - balance of judgment undisturbed
I therefore find the application to review my judgment in regard to payment of July 2017 is not merited.
p. 4Review refused on July 2017 salary

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment does not identify the parties or the suit number of the underlying claim by name; the case title is inferred from a cited authority and the parties are identified only by role, which may not match the actual parties to the suit.

minor

Conflicting role labels: the moving party is described as Respondent/Applicant and the opposing party as Claimant/Respondent; paragraph 9 also says 'The Respondent avers that did not receive any payments' although it appears in the Claimant's case.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Emojong v Henkel Chemicals (EA) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1910 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2015 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2015/eng@2025-07-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.