Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels,Educational Institutions and Hospital Work v Pwani University & another [2016] KEELRC 203 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court corrected its arithmetic on a wrongful termination award but refused to rethink decisions already made—those require an appeal, not a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether dismissal of severance pay claim is an error apparent on the face of the record
It is not; a prayer considered and dismissed on merits can only be challenged on appeal
Review under rule 32(1) applies where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The severance pay prayer was adjudicated on its merits in the 13.11.2015 judgment, so revisiting it on review would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own judgment. The applicant's proper remedy was an appeal.
Whether the court could reduce awards to the three grievants on the respondent's informal request
Declined; the respondent neither appealed nor formally applied for review, and her calculations were incorrect
The respondent raised the alleged excessiveness only by affidavit and submissions without following the procedure for review. Even if the court excused procedural non-compliance, the calculations were demonstrably wrong, so the informal request failed.
Whether the court could correct arithmetical errors and the omitted grievant suo motu / by consent
Yes; the awards to the three grievants were rectified under rule 33 and Dorcas Salama Randu added by consent, giving an aggregate of kshs.4,158,718
The court invoked rule 33 to rectify mistakes and arithmetical errors in quantifying the awards to the three grievants and the aggregate. Dorcas Salama Randu's omission was unopposed and admitted, so judgment was reviewed to award her the same reliefs as the other 22 grievants.
Legal principles established
#- A prayer dismissed on merits cannot be revisited on review; the remedy is appeal, not review
- An applicant for review bears the burden of demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record
- The court may on its own motion rectify clerical or arithmetical errors under rule 33
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 12.2.2016 is allowed only to the extent that the judgment dated 13.11.2015 is reviewed and corrected by adding an award in favour of Dorcas Salama Randu of kshs.198,607 (notice kshs.39,606; leave kshs.11,127; underpayment kshs.68,662; compensation kshs.79,212)
- 2.The award to Kenga Katana reduced from kshs.198,607 to kshs.172,203, Johnson Naunga from kshs.156,598 to kshs.156,754, and Paul Karisa Kahindi from kshs.156,598 to kshs.156,754
- 3.The aggregate award for the 23 grievants corrected from Kshs.4,195,319 to kshs.4,158,718, plus costs and interest as earlier ordered on 13.11.2015
- 4.Request for review to award severance pay dismissed
- 5.Respondent's informal request for review to reduce awards declined
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1) and 16 of the Industrial Court Act and rule 32(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; rule 33 for rectification of clerical/arithmetical errors
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels,Educational Institutions and Hospital Work v Pwani University & another [2016] KEELRC 203 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 110 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/203/eng@2016-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.