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 the excerpt· [2025] KEELRC 2643 (KLR)

Goodlife Pharmacy Limited v Odhiambo (Appeal E069 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2643 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 September 2025
NMNzioki wa Makau
1,316 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

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed a review attempt to cut a wrongful termination award, warning that review is not a backdoor appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant in an appeal before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu applied by motion dated 26th May 2025 to set aside, review or vary the Court's judgment of 14th May 2025, contending that the Court had erroneously determined the appeal by relying on a judgment of 4th August 2022 that had been set aside on 9th March 2023 rather than the trial court's final judgment of June 2024. The Appellant argued this was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that it exposed it to unadjudicated financial liability. The Respondent opposed, admitting the reference to the set-aside judgment but maintaining the decision rested on the final judgment, that appellate courts re-evaluate evidence rather than rely on lower court judgments, and that the application was a covert attempt to reduce the award of Kshs. 720,000/- to Kshs. 360,000/-, a matter for appeal not review. The Respondent further invoked Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and the Siaya County Assembly Service Board v Olwero decision on the narrow scope of clarification. In its disposition the Court held there was no appeal against the 4th August 2022 decision; the memorandum of appeal related only to the decision of 20th June 2024, and the sole defect was an errata on page 1 correctable under the slip rule in Rule 75. The motion was dismissed with costs to the Respondent on the higher scale.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an error apparent on the face of the record justified review

Holding

The application failed; the only error was a slip on the face of the judgment correctable under the slip rule, and the decision was rendered on the final judgment of the trial court, not the set-aside interlocutory judgment

Reasoning

The Court held that its decision related to the decision of the trial court as per the memorandum of appeal; the submissions and citations in the appeal concerned only the decision of Hon. Obina made in June 2024. The reference to the set-aside 2022 judgment was an errata on page 1, corrected under the slip rule in Rule 75 of the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024, not a substantive error warranting review.

p. 3
02

Whether the application was a surreptitious attempt to alter the award

Holding

The Court found the application was a disguised attempt to reverse the substantive award and reduce the decretal sum

Reasoning

The Respondent argued, and the Court accepted in substance, that the Applicant was attempting to have the award reduced from Kshs. 720,000/- to Kshs. 360,000/-, a matter lying only in appeal, not review. The Court characterized the motion as misguided and penalized it with costs on the higher scale.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A review court cannot be used to revisit the merits of an appeal or re-evaluate an award; the proper recourse against a decision is appeal, not review
  • Clarification under Rule 74(c) is permissible only where a judgment is ambiguous, unclear or confusing, and must conform with the findings already made

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Correction of the errata on the face of the judgment at page 1 under the slip rule in Rule 75 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024
  2. 2.Dismissal of the motion dated 26th May 2025 with costs to the Respondent
  3. 3.Costs on the higher scale
  4. 4.Affirmation that the Respondent in the appeal was entitled to all reliefs granted by the trial court on 20th June 2024 save for the surcharge of Kshs. 97,464/- which was resolved in favour of the Appellant
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (trial court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act invoked by the Applicant; the Court applied Rule 74 and 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, "Goodlife Pharmacy Limited v Odhiambo (Appeal E069 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2643/eng@2025-09-30

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