Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the extract (original judgment delivered 23rd January, 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 1425 (KLR)

Brinks Security Services Limited v Chahasi (Appeal E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1425 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 May 2025
JGJACOB GAKERI
786 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can fix clerical errors in judgments, correcting a House allowance award to Kshs.81,766.53 without a full review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu determines the appellant's Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2025 expressed under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant sought a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 23rd January, 2025 and an order varying, setting aside, correcting or reviewing that judgment on the ground that the court had failed to compute the House allowance awarded to the respondent under Section 31 of the Employment Act. In a supporting affidavit, Duncan Otieno Njuga deposed that the judgment contained an accidental slip or omission in that the computation of House allowance was absent, and that the respondent was in fact entitled to Kshs.273,444.53. At a mention on 12th May, 2025, counsel for both parties agreed that what was needed was rectification of the omission, and the respondent filed no response. The court ascertained that the copy of the judgment on the Judiciary CTS lacked the computation, while the hard copy in the court file contained it, the computation having been omitted during uploading. Relying on Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, and citing Outa v Okello, Kuria v Mambo, the Kenya Seed Company ex parte case and Steve Onyango v Techspa, the court held it had power to correct clerical mistakes, incidental errors and omissions. The motion was allowed; the judgment was corrected to award Kshs.81,766.53 as House allowance (15% of basic salary for 36 months), and each party was to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Power to correct clerical mistakes, incidental errors or omissions in a judgment

Holding

The court is clothed with power to correct such errors and exercised it where the uploaded copy of the judgment omitted the House allowance computation.

Reasoning

Counsel for the applicant submitted that under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 75 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 the court may correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes and errors arising from accidental slip or omission. The respondent did not file a response and agreed the omission should be rectified. The court confirmed the CTS copy lacked the computation while the hard copy in the court file contained it, not picked up during uploading, and allowed the correction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The court may, at the request of the parties or on its own motion, rectify any clerical mistake, incidental error or omission in its judgment and notify the parties of such rectification.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The Judgment dated 23rd January, 2025 is corrected in respect of House allowance to read that the respondent was awarded the sum of Kshs.81,766.53 being 15% of his basic salary for a period of 36 months
  3. 3.Parties shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 99
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 75
  • Employment ActSection 31

Cases cited (4)

  • Fredrick Otieno Outa V Jared Odoyo Okello
    [2017] eKLR
  • Leonard Mambo Kuria V Ann Wanjiru Mambo
    [2017] eKLR
  • Republic V Attorney General & 15 others Ex Parte Kenya Seed Co. and 5 others
    [2010] eKLR
  • Steve Onyango V Techspa General Supplies Ltd & 2 others
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Brinks Security Services Limited v Chahasi (Appeal E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (original judgment delivered 23rd January, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1425/eng@2025-05-19

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