Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 64 of 2019· [2025] KEELRC 1588 (KLR)

Ngari v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 64 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1588 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2025
SRStella Rutto
1,188 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court corrected a Ksh 1.1 million arithmetic error in an employee's award, confirming that obvious calculation mistakes in judgments can be fixed through review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Stella Rutto, J) on the Claimant Esther Macharia Ngari's Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2024, seeking review of the Court's judgment delivered on 9th June 2023 and the ensuing decree of 6th December 2023. She sought correction of typographical/arithmetic errors in paragraphs (e) and (g): substituting Kshs 2,734,250 for Kshs 1,604,250 (salary and allowances from 9th April 2018 to 15th April 2019) and raising the total award in paragraph (g) from Kshs 9,023,575 to Kshs 11,608,575. She also sought setting aside of an order of 20th June 2024 (Hon. Azima Ajwang) closing the case after taxation of her bill of costs at Kshs 705,000, though this was not addressed in the disposition. The Respondent, through its Chief Legal Officer Mr. Anthony Ademba, did not oppose the generality of the application but flagged arithmetic inconsistencies, contending the correct figures were Kshs 2,724,250 and a total of Kshs 10,143,575. Applying Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, the Court held the review fell within 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' because the computations did not reconcile. The Court allowed the Motion in part: paragraph (e) was reviewed to Kshs 2,724,250 and the total award at paragraph (g) consequentially reviewed to Kshs 10,143,575, with the decree to be amended accordingly. The Court declined to adopt the Claimant's Kshs 11,608,575 total as it could not decipher her computation. There were no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Motion is merited under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Holding

The application is meritorious to the extent that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the arithmetic computation of the salary and allowances award, but the Claimant's proposed total of Kshs 11,608,575 is not substantiated

Reasoning

The Court restated the grounds for review under Rule 74, including mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Fresh computation showed the correct salary and allowances figure from 9th April 2018 to 15th April 2019 was Kshs 2,724,250, not the Kshs 1,604,250 entered, constituting an apparent error. The Court adopted its own corrected figure rather than the Claimant's slightly higher figure or her total of Kshs 11,608,575, which it could not reconcile with the unchanged awards.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review based on arithmetic/computational errors falls within the ambit of Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, as a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
  • A consequential review of a total award must follow arithmetically from the corrected components; a claimant's own unexplained computation will not be adopted where it does not reconcile with the unchanged awards

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Paragraph (e) of the Judgment delivered on 9th June 2023 is reviewed so that the salary and allowances due to the Claimant from 9th April 2018 up to 15th April 2019 is Kshs 2,724,250.00
  2. 2.As a consequence of the review under paragraph (e), the Claimant's total award at paragraph (g) is reviewed to Kshs 10,143,575.00
  3. 3.The decree shall be reviewed accordingly to reflect the review of the Court's final orders as above
  4. 4.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 74
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (review of the Court's own orders)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngari v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 64 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1588 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 64 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1588/eng@2025-05-30

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