Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 14th September, 2020)· [2021] KEELRC 2394 (KLR)

Solomon Kiige Ngecha v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited [2021] KEELRC 2394 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 November 2021
MMM. Mbaru
1,118 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to recalculate interest on a 2017 award, ruling the Taxing Master's Certificate of Costs is the definitive record of what is owed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant filed an application dated 14th September 2020 seeking an order that the respondent pay Ksh.322,385/= being interest allegedly unpaid and due on a judgment delivered on 29th June 2017, together with costs. The claimant contended that the decree contained arithmetic errors in the calculation of interest on the terminal dues awarded (notice pay Ksh.34,824; 94 days leave Ksh.109,115; damages Ksh.417,888; pension Ksh.118,757.30), and that interest computed at 12% from the date of filing suit (18th July 2000) to the date of payment (1st July 2018) totalled Ksh.614,779/= against the Ksh.293,394/= reflected in the decree, leaving a shortfall of Ksh.322,385/=. The respondent, through the affidavit of Rose Mukoba, manager of human resources, opposed the application, averring that judgment was entered for the claimant on 29th June 2017 awarding Ksh.591,210 plus interest and costs; that the costs were taxed at Ksh.196,988; that the total dues of Ksh.1,084,042 were fully paid and acknowledged; and that the new demand was an afterthought, did not meet the threshold of section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and that the court was functus officio. The court framed a single issue: whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the alleged unpaid interest. Holding that the Taxing Master's Decree and Certificate of Costs constituted the true record of dues, that the claimant could not make unilateral tabulations or relitigate settled dues after over three years, and that the delay evidenced indolence, the court found no matter for review, amendment or clarification. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should review its decree to correct alleged arithmetic errors in the calculation of interest

Holding

The application was dismissed; no mistake on the record, new matter or need for clarification was established to warrant review.

Reasoning

The court held that the judgment of 29th June 2017 clearly set out the awards (notice pay, leave days, damages and pension). The claimant's recalculation of the terminal dues as Ksh.262,696.30 was incorrect. Costs and interests had been addressed by the Taxing Master through a Decree and Certificate of Costs, which is the true record of dues. The claimant had been fully paid and acknowledged payment, and the application was brought after over three years, evidencing inordinate delay. Accordingly the review thresholds in section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 were not met.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may review its own orders on discovery of new matter, a mistake on the record, need for clarification or for any good cause under section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016.
  • Costs and interests due as awarded in a judgment are matters addressed by the Taxing Master, and a party cannot unilaterally make its own tabulations after a Certificate of Costs has been issued.
  • Justice aids the vigilant and not the indolent; a party who was fully paid cannot, after an inordinate delay of over three years, claim discovery of new matter or a mistake on the record.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 14th September, 2020 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 read together with Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Solomon Kiige Ngecha v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited [2021] KEELRC 2394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 14th September, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2394/eng@2021-11-18

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