Goodlife Pharmacy Limited v Odhiambo (Appeal E069 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2643 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a review attempt to cut a wrongful termination award, warning that review is not a backdoor appeal.
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's judgment of 14th May 2025 erroneously relied on the set-aside judgment of 4th August 2022 instead of the final judgment of the trial court delivered in June 2024
- 2.Whether an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (or Rule 74 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024) was established
- 3.Whether the reference to the vacated judgment prejudiced the Appellant or affected the substance of the decision
- 4.Whether the correction sought is a matter of review or of the slip rule under Rule 75
Key legal issues
#Whether an error apparent on the face of the record justified review
The application failed; the only error was a slip on the face of the judgment correctable under the slip rule, and the decision was rendered on the final judgment of the trial court, not the set-aside interlocutory judgment
The Court held that its decision related to the decision of the trial court as per the memorandum of appeal; the submissions and citations in the appeal concerned only the decision of Hon. Obina made in June 2024. The reference to the set-aside 2022 judgment was an errata on page 1, corrected under the slip rule in Rule 75 of the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024, not a substantive error warranting review.
Whether the application was a surreptitious attempt to alter the award
The Court found the application was a disguised attempt to reverse the substantive award and reduce the decretal sum
The Respondent argued, and the Court accepted in substance, that the Applicant was attempting to have the award reduced from Kshs. 720,000/- to Kshs. 360,000/-, a matter lying only in appeal, not review. The Court characterized the motion as misguided and penalized it with costs on the higher scale.
Legal principles established
#- A review court cannot be used to revisit the merits of an appeal or re-evaluate an award; the proper recourse against a decision is appeal, not review
- Clarification under Rule 74(c) is permissible only where a judgment is ambiguous, unclear or confusing, and must conform with the findings already made
Court orders
#- 1.Correction of the errata on the face of the judgment at page 1 under the slip rule in Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024
- 2.Dismissal of the motion dated 26th May 2025 with costs to the Respondent
- 3.Costs on the higher scale
- 4.Affirmation that the Respondent in the appeal was entitled to all reliefs granted by the trial court on 20th June 2024 save for the surcharge of Kshs. 97,464/- which was resolved in favour of the Appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act invoked by the Applicant; the Court applied Rule 74 and Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Review, setting aside or variation of the judgment of 14th May 2025
No appeal lay against the decision of 4th August 2022; the appeal concerned the decision of 20th June 2024, and the only error was a slip on the face of the judgment correctable under the slip rule
Costs
The motion is dismissed with costs to the Respondent; costs on the higher scale because the Appellant misguided itself.
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 motion is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
To be clear, the decision of the Court afirmed that the Respondent in the Appeal was entitled to all the reliefs granted by the trial court on 20th June 2024 save for the issue of the surcharge of Kshs. 97,464/- which was resolved in favour of the Appellant.
The only errata was on the face of the judgment at page 1 which error is corrected under the slip rule in Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024.
Costs shall be on the higher scale as the Appellant has misguided itself in this sorry attempt at reversing a decision made with absolutely no basis for the move.
Issues in the judgment
#The date of the final trial judgment is inconsistently stated as 13th June 2024 in the pleadings section and 20th June 2024 in the disposition
The date of the trial court's decision is given as 13th June 2024 in one passage and the disposition refers to a decision of 20th June 2024, while the Respondent's submissions refer to a judgment dated 13th June 2024
The judgment states the decision under appeal was rendered on 20th June 2024 but elsewhere the Appellant's position is that the final judgment was 13th June 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Goodlife Pharmacy Limited v Odhiambo (Appeal E069 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2643/eng@2025-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.