Stella Ndunge Kimatu v Teachers Service Commission [2021] KEELRC 2212 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court corrected its own judgment typo, restoring an employee's awarded salary arrears, interest, and costs without needing a full appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was incompetent for being brought under the Civil Procedure Rules rather than the ELRC Procedure Rules
The objection was rejected; wrong citation of provisions does not invalidate an application absent deliberate intent to mislead.
The court held that wrong or omitted statutory citations are not fatal unless done deliberately to mislead. The respondent did not establish that reliance on the Civil Procedure Rules instead of the ELRC Procedure Rules was deliberately misleading, so the court proceeded to determine the application on its merits.
Whether the omission of prayers (v), (vi) and (vii) from the orders in paragraph 39 of the judgment was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
Yes - the omission was a typographical error; the court had intended and indeed granted prayers (i) to (vii), so review under Rule 33 was warranted.
The judgment had expressly granted prayers (i) to (vii), but only four orders were listed in paragraph 39 due to a typographical omission. The error was self-evident and required no long argument. Consistent with the slip rule jurisprudence, the court invoked its inherent jurisdiction and Rule 34 to give effect to its manifest intention without sitting on appeal over itself.
Whether the two-month delay in filing the application was reasonable
Yes, the delay of two months was not unreasonable given the Covid-19 pandemic scaling down of court operations.
Although the claimant's counsel had been notified by email of the delivery date, the court found that pandemic-related scaling down of operations denied litigants access to court premises, making the two-month delay reasonable under Rule 33's 'within reasonable time' requirement.
Legal principles established
#- Citation of a wrong provision of law does not render an application fatally incompetent unless done deliberately to mislead the court.
- A court may invoke the slip rule to give effect to its manifest intention where an omission was inadvertent.
- A court may on its own motion cause clerical mistakes, incidental errors or omissions to be rectified.
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment dated 29.4.2020 is reviewed by adding to paragraph 39, immediately after order number (iv): (v) Payment of the salary and allowances arrears from May 2018 till payment in full; (vi) Payment of interest on salary and allowances arrears from May 2018 till payment in full; (vii) Costs of the suit.
- 2.The rest of the judgment remains unchanged.
- 3.Each party shall bear own costs of the application.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A & 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; 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, "Stella Ndunge Kimatu v Teachers Service Commission [2021] KEELRC 2212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 29.6.2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2212/eng@2021-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.