Zakayo v Timaflor Limited (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court corrected its own ruling so an employee could not be paid medical expenses his employer had already covered.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under rule 74(1)
The impugned ruling contained an error on the face of the record because it proceeded on a second medical examination that was never mentioned in the Replying Affidavit, and conflated the insurer's payment of the sum assured to the employer with a payment to the injured employee.
The court compared the Replying Affidavit of Cheryl Odipo with its earlier ruling and found the ruling referenced a second medical examination reducing the DOSH award to Kshs.370,225, yet no such examination appeared in the affidavit. That sum was the insurance payout to the employer, not a payment to the claimant. The employer's Domestic Fund Transfer of 21st June 2022 proved it paid the medical expenses of Kshs.477,042, so awarding them to the claimant would be unjust enrichment.
Reasonableness of the two-month delay in filing the review
The delay of about two months was not unreasonable given the intervening court recess.
The respondent argued inordinate delay, but the court held that a court recess fell between the ruling and the application, making the timing within 'reasonable time' as required by rule 74(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules.
Whether payment of medical expenses after the claimant's discharge matters
The timing of the payment of medical expenses relative to discharge is immaterial.
The claimant contended the medical expenses were paid long after discharge, but the court found the Domestic Fund Transfer of 21st June 2022 proved the employer paid the Kshs.477,042, and the timing was not material to the entitlement question.
Legal principles established
#- Where medical expenses were paid by the employer as evidenced by documentary proof, awarding them again to the claimant who did not incur them would amount to unjust enrichment and constitutes an error on the face of the record.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of 20th December 2024 is reviewed and varied to the extent that the sum of Kshs.477,042 being medical expenses is discounted from the amount payable
- 2.The application dated 4th February 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 3 thereof
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 74(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zakayo v Timaflor Limited (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2273/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.