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 AllowedNotice of Motion dated 24th July, 2025 (ELRC Judicial Review/miscellaneous application, Kisumu)· [2025] KEELRC 2669 (KLR)

Shikolio v Transmara Sugar Company (Cause 5 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2669 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 October 2025
JGJacob Gakeri
1,829 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court corrected a Kshs.100,000 salary calculation error in its own judgment and struck out a decree that double-counted the same award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application by a former employee, Mr. Abubakar Aslam Shikolio, seeking amendment of the judgment dated 11th September, 2024 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, transfer of the file to Nairobi for Justice Stephen Radido, and costs. The applicant contended that the judgment as typed stated compensation of Kshs.230,808 whereas the court had awarded the equivalent of 2 months' gross salary at Kshs.165,404 per month, and that the extracted Decree of 28th March, 2025 did not accord with the judgment, delaying settlement. The respondent opposed, deposing through Mr. Dickens M. Ouma that the judgment was clear and unambiguous, that the decree was materially defective and not actionable, and that Kshs.398,059 had been paid. Gakeri J held that the court has inherent jurisdiction, under Rule 75 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes at any time, applying Vallabdas Karsadelas Raniga. The court found the only error was arithmetical: 165,404 multiplied by 2 yields Kshs.330,808, not Kshs.230,808. It agreed the Decree of 28th March, 2025 did not accord with the judgment, duplicated the same award, and would amount to unjust enrichment; it directed deletion of item 3 of the decree. The claim that 'damages' had been mistyped for 'compensation' failed, as no damages were awarded. No clarification or transfer was necessary. The motion was partially successful, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of 11th September, 2024 contained an arithmetical error capable of correction under the slip rule

Holding

Yes - 2 months' gross salary at Kshs.165,404 per month equals Kshs.330,808, not Kshs.230,808 as typed

Reasoning

The body of the judgment awarded the equivalent of 2 months' gross salary at Kshs.165,404 per month, but the conclusion and Orders paragraph stated the compensation as Kshs.230,808. The court found the only discernible error was arithmetical, the correct product being Kshs.330,808, and invoked Rule 75 of the ELRC Rules and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct it.

p. 4
02

Whether the Decree dated 28th March, 2025 accorded with the judgment

Holding

It did not; it erroneously included both the equivalent of 2 months' gross salary and the compensation award, duplicating the same item

Reasoning

The decree extracted by the applicant included both the award of the equivalent of 2 months' gross salary and the compensation of Kshs.230,808, which were the same award. The court agreed with the respondent that the decree was materially defective, not in accord with the judgment, and directed deletion of the redundant item.

p. 4
03

Whether the court had typed 'damages' instead of 'compensation'

Holding

No - the court made no such error because no damages were ever awarded

Reasoning

The applicant alleged a typing error substituting damages for compensation. The court held there was no award of damages at all, so no typing error arose; the only defect was the arithmetical figure in the compensation award.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has inherent jurisdiction, under Rule 75 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes in its judgment, decree or orders at any time.
  • A decree that does not accord with the judgment is defective and not actionable; a decree awarding a claimant twice for the same item would amount to unjust enrichment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judgment dated 11th September, 2024 is corrected and/or rectified so that paragraph 29(i) reads 'Compensation, Kshs.330,808.00'
  2. 2.The Decree dated 28th March, 2025 is corrected by deleting item number 3 of the Decree in totality
  3. 3.Parties shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 23 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 8
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 33, 34, 89 and 99
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rules 45, 47 and 75
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 45(4)(b) and 49(1)(c)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3(2) (as quoted in Vallabdas)

Cases cited (4)

  • Vallabdas Karsadelas Raniga V Mansukhlal Jivraj & Others
    [1965] EA 780
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd V R. Raja & Sons
    [1966] EA 313
  • Nedemar Technology B V Ltd V Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & another
    [2009] eKLR
  • Fredrick Otieno Outa V Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 Others
    eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 50 Rule 1 and Order 23 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 33, 34, 89 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; 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, "Shikolio v Transmara Sugar Company (Cause 5 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 24th July, 2025 (ELRC Judicial Review/miscellaneous application, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2669/eng@2025-10-02

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