Sukhija v NMC Fertility Point Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E262 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1769 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court corrected its own judgment to award a former employee USD 50,840 in admitted but unpaid terminal dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the judgment of 4th February 2025 contains an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the terminal dues award
- 2.Whether the claim for Kshs. 5,287,335 or USD 50,840 as terminal dues was pleaded and ought to have been awarded
Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record as a ground for review
The court found that failing to award the admitted USD 50,840 in terminal dues, which was pleaded and acknowledged by the Respondent, was an error apparent on the record warranting review
The court noted the claimant prayed for terminal dues; the respondent admitted in its response and submissions that amounts were owing; yet the judgment awarded only the leave. Omitting an admitted, pleaded head of claim was a self-evident omission correctable on review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1, relying on National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau.
Whether review was a disguised appeal
The court rejected the respondent's argument that the application was an appeal in disguise and that the court was functus officio
The Respondent argued the application raised merit issues belonging to an appellate court and relied on the functus officio doctrine. The court nonetheless proceeded to review, finding the omission was an error apparent on the record rather than a mere erroneous decision or attempt to re-litigate the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A court may review its judgment to correct an error apparent on the face of the record where an admitted amount was omitted from the award
Court orders
#- 1.Review of the judgment at paragraph 57 to indicate that the claimant is entitled to her terminal dues inclusive of the leave granted at paragraph 56
- 2.Total award of USD 51,985 comprising USD 1,144 air ticket to India and USD 50,840 terminal dues
- 3.Costs of the suit and interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to be in the cause
The court instead awarded costs of the suit and interest; no separate order on costs in the cause was made
Costs
Costs of this suit and interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This is an error apparent on the record which I proceed to review at para 57 of my judgement to include the 50,840 terminal dues.
The judgment is accordingly reviewed at para 57 to indicate that the claimant is entitled to her terminal dues inclusive of the leave granted at para 56 and the total thus awarded :
Total = 51,985 USD plus costs of this suit and interest at court rates with efiect from the date of the judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Applicant's submissions date the judgment inconsistently, stating it was delivered on 3rd December 2024 whereas the application and judgment both reference delivery on 4th February 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sukhija v NMC Fertility Point Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E262 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1769 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract (Notice of Motion dated 21st February 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1769/eng@2025-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.