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 extract (Motion Amended on 22 April 2024 within the Cause)· [2025] KEELRC 491 (KLR)

Khamala v Design N-Scope Architects & Interior Designers Limited & 2 others (Cause 159 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 491 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
840 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to reconsider its own judgment on unpaid salary claims because review is only for obvious errors, not a second bite at the evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant moved the Court by a Motion amended on 22 April 2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 15 February 2024 so as to award unpaid salaries for June 2018 to January 2019 (Kshs 100,666.67) and one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 140,000). The grounds were that these heads of claim had been pleaded and were undisputed, yet the judgment did not address them. The Respondent did not respond to the Motion despite service. The Claimant filed submissions on 12 February 2025. The Court observed that the Motion did not disclose on its face the ground relied upon, with error apparent on the face of the record only raised in submissions. It acknowledged that in the underlying judgment it had framed but not answered the questions on payment in lieu of notice and unpaid salary. Nonetheless, applying the Court of Appeal authorities on review (National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo), it held that to grant the relief it would need to examine the pleadings, re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions on whether the heads of claim were merited - an exercise outside the scope of review jurisdiction, which is confined to correcting self-evident errors or omissions. The Court accordingly declined to exercise its review jurisdiction, dismissed the Motion dated 22 April 2024, and made no order on costs. The judgment was delivered virtually, dated and signed in Nairobi on 20 February 2025 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Motion disclosed a ground for review

Holding

The Motion failed because answering the unanswered claims would require re-evaluation of evidence, which review jurisdiction does not permit

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that in the underlying judgment it had identified but not answered the questions on payment in lieu of notice and unpaid salary. However, to now answer them, it would need to examine pleadings, re-evaluate evidence and draw its own conclusions. The Court of Appeal authorities establish that review is confined to self-evident errors or omissions, not merits reconsideration. The exercise sought therefore fell outside review jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A review cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence and answer questions the court failed to answer; that is an appellate-type exercise outside the scope of review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court declines to exercise its review jurisdiction
  2. 2.The Motion dated 22 April 2024 is dismissed
  3. 3.No order on costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (review of its own judgment of 15 February 2024)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khamala v Design N-Scope Architects & Interior Designers Limited & 2 others (Cause 159 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract (Motion Amended on 22 April 2024 within the Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/491/eng@2025-02-20

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