Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers’ Union v Kapa Oil Refineries Limited [2018] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court corrected its own arithmetic mistakes on review, nearly doubling one worker's compensation and stripping an interest award that was never claimed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Apparent error on the face of the record regarding length of service
The court erroneously stated the 1st grievant served over five years instead of over fifteen years, leading to an inadequate compensation award, which was reviewed from five to ten months' salary
The judgment of 20th December 2016 correctly recorded that the grievant worked from February 1995 to July 2010 but wrongly characterised the period as over five years. This arithmetic error affected the quantum of compensation, notice pay and gratuity, warranting review under Rule 33 to correct the award to ten months' salary.
Entitlement to three months' notice pay after long service
The 1st grievant, having served over 15 years, was entitled to three months' salary in lieu of notice, while the 2nd grievant, with under 10 years' service, was entitled to two months
The court had awarded two months' notice pay to the 1st grievant instead of three months applicable to his length of service, and conversely awarded the 2nd grievant three months instead of the two applicable to employees who had not served ten years. Both awards were reviewed to reflect the correct entitlements based on length of service.
Award of unpleaded interest
The award of interest was removed because interest was never pleaded
The original judgment had awarded interest although no party had pleaded a claim for interest. The court held this to be an apparent error on the face of the record and reviewed the judgment to delete the award of interest entirely.
Legal principles established
#- A court may review its own judgment under Rule 33 where there are apparent errors on the face of the record
- Interest cannot be awarded where it was not pleaded
Court orders
#- 1.Review of compensation for the 1st grievant from the equivalent of five (5) months' salary to the equivalent of ten (10) months' salary in the sum of Kshs.106,500
- 2.Variation of notice pay for the 1st grievant from Kshs.21,300 to Kshs.31,950
- 3.Award of gratuity to the 1st grievant in the sum of Kshs.159,750
- 4.Confirmation of 15 days' salary for July 2010 for the 1st grievant in the sum of Kshs.5,325
- 5.Confirmation of 10 months' salary compensation for the 2nd grievant in the sum of Kshs.101,000
- 6.Review of notice pay for the 2nd grievant from Kshs.30,300 to Kshs.20,200
- 7.Award of gratuity for the 2nd grievant in the sum of Kshs.90,000
- 8.Confirmation of 15 days' arrear salary for the 2nd grievant in the sum of Kshs.5,826.92
- 9.Removal of the award of interest from the judgment
- 10.Costs to abide the outcome
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers’ Union v Kapa Oil Refineries Limited [2018] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 1690 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1989/eng@2018-04-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.