Shadrack Kipkemboi Atuga v Saifee Chemicals Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer's bid to cut a worker's award failed, but the court corrected the decree to include Kshs. 35,000 in service pay, raising the total to Kshs. 367,080.
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 the impugned judgment/decree as prayed
Key legal issues
#Whether the failure to deduct the claimant's 25% contributory liability from the general damages award was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
No - the court expressly took the agreed apportionment into account when awarding Kshs. 200,000 in general damages, so there was no error warranting review
Paragraph 27 of the judgment recorded the consent on apportionment and stated the court would determine quantum taking the 25:75 apportionment into account. Paragraph 33 expressly stated the award of Kshs. 200,000 factored in the agreed contributory negligence. The applicant's proposed deduction would amount to double deduction, so the review ground failed.
Whether the omission of the Kshs. 35,000 service pay award from the concluding orders and the Decree is a correctable clerical error
Yes - the omission was an accidental slip correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; the Decree should include the Kshs. 35,000, bringing the total to Kshs. 367,080
Paragraph 35 of the judgment found the service pay claim admitted and payable, but paragraph 36's concluding orders omitted it. The correction does not alter the substance of the decision but aligns the Decree with the court's clear and undisputed intention, and section 99 permits such correction at any time on the court's own motion or a party's application.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties record a consent on apportionment of liability, a trial court should assess 100% quantum and then subject it to the agreed contributory liability
- Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips in judgments, decrees or orders at any time
Court orders
#- 1.Refusal of the respondent's Notice of Motion dated 16th February 2026 seeking review of the decree to reflect the consent judgment on liability at 25:75
- 2.Correction of the Decree under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to include the sum of Kshs. 35,000 awarded as service pay, bringing the total decretal sum to Kshs. 367,080
- 3.No order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Rule 74(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules; sections 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Review of the decree to reflect the consent judgment on liability at 25:75 and reduce the decretal sum to Kshs. 282,080
The court had already taken the agreed contributory negligence into account in awarding general damages; no error apparent on the face of the record
Costs
No costs awarded - 'Since the claimant has benefited from the failed application by the respondent judgment Debtor, I will not condemn anyone to pay 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 find that the Court considered and took into account the agreed liability apportionment in awarding general damages of Kshs. 200,000. There is therefore no error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant review of the Decree as prayed by the applicant.
I therefore find that the Decree should be corrected to include the sum of Kshs. 35,000 awarded as service pay, bringing the total decretal sum to Kshs. 367,080.
the best way for a trial court to deal with a case of this nature is to assess the 100% quantum of damages and then subject it to the contributory liability as agreed between the parties.
Since the claimant has benefited from the failed application by the respondent judgment Debtor, I will not condemn anyone to pay costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment date printed as 8th October 2026 while the review motion is dated 16th February 2026 and prior events occur in 2025; dates appear internally consistent but the year 2026 is unusual
Claimant referred to as 'his' in submissions paragraph but 'her' in paragraph 16
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shadrack Kipkemboi Atuga v Saifee Chemicals Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 510 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2785/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.