Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No. 1774 of 2015

Jared Otieno Opiata v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 1109 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
14 May 2020
MMM. Mbaru
323 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court corrected clerical errors in a judgment won against National Bank of Kenya, confirming the worker's costs and interest on notice pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a rectification ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi in Cause No. 1774 of 2015, delivered by M. Mbaru, J, on 14th May 2020. Following a judgment dated 7th May 2020 in which the claimant, Jared Otieno Opiata, succeeded in his substantive claims against the respondent, National Bank of Kenya Limited, the claimant applied by notice dated 11th May 2020 under Rule 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 for rectification of errors in the final orders. Rule 34 empowers the court, either on the request of the parties or on its own motion, to cause any clerical mistake, incidental error or omission in a judgment to be rectified and to notify the parties of the rectification. The court noted an error in the final orders and issued directions: first, it restated the last paragraph of the judgment, confirming that under section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 costs are discretionary and, the claimant having succeeded in the substantive claims, costs were to be awarded, and that the awards for notice pay carry interest from 16th December 2014, the date they fell due, until paid in full. Second, it corrected order (e), which had erroneously referred to dues (d), to read that dues (c) shall be paid with interest from 16th December 2014 and until paid in full at court rates. The judgment was amended accordingly, and the Deputy Registrar was directed to extract and serve the parties with the correction. The application was allowed; there were no cited authorities and no decision below.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether there is an error in the final orders of the judgment dated 7th May 2020 that should be rectified under Rule 34, and specifically whether order (e) should refer to dues (c) rather than dues (d)

Key legal issues

#
01

Rectification of a clerical error in the final orders of a judgment

Holding

The court found an error in the final orders and rectified order (e) to refer to dues (c) instead of dues (d), and clarified the interest provision on notice pay.

Reasoning

The claimant requested rectification under Rule 34, which permits the court, on request or on its own motion, to correct clerical mistakes, incidental errors or omissions in a judgment. The court noted an error in the final orders and amended order (e) accordingly, directing the Deputy Registrar to extract and serve the correction.

p. 2
02

Costs and interest on notice pay in the substantive judgment

Holding

The last paragraph of the judgment is restated to record that costs are awarded to the claimant, who succeeded in the substantive claims, and that notice pay awards carry interest from 16th December 2014 until paid in full.

Reasoning

Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 makes an award of costs discretionary where it is just. Since the claimant succeeded in the substantive claims, justice demanded that costs be awarded, and the notice pay ought to have been paid instantly, hence interest from the date due.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court may, under Rule 34, either at the request of the parties or on its own motion, cause any clerical mistake, incidental error or omission in a judgment to be rectified and shall notify the parties of such rectification.
  • Under section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011, costs are discretionary and are awarded where it is just to do so.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment dated 7th May 2020 is amended so that the last paragraph records that costs are awarded to the claimant, and that the awards made for notice pay shall attract interest from 16th December 2014 until paid in full
  2. 2.Order (e) is corrected to read 'Dues (c) above shall be paid with interest from 16th December, 2014 and until paid in full at court rates' instead of 'dues (d) above'
  3. 3.The judgment is amended in the terms stated
  4. 4.The Deputy Registrar shall extract and serve the parties with a correction of the judgment dated 7th May 2020

The bench

#

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

MM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (rectification of clerical mistakes, incidental errors or omissions)

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 judgement of the court dated 7th May, 2020 is hereby amended in the following terms
p. 2Amendment of judgment
Dues (c) above shall be paid with interest from 16th December, 2014 and until paid in full at court rates
p. 2Corrected order (e)
The Deputy Registrar shall extract as above stated and serve the parties with a correction of the judgement dated 7 th May, 2020.
p. 2Final orders - extraction and service of correction

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The request by the claimant is dated '11th My, 2020' - an evident typographical error for May, and the heading alternatively refers to a 'judgement dated 7th May, 2010' whereas the body and orders consistently refer to a judgment dated 7th May, 2020.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jared Otieno Opiata v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 1109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 1774 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1109/eng@2020-05-14

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