Duncan N Nderitu & 18 others v Telkom Kenya Limited & 1 other

SIMON MWANGI NGAARI ............................................................ 20TH PLAINTIFF STEPHN OKORUBO ......................................................................... 21ST PLAINTIFF JOYCE CHEPNGETICH ................................................................... 22ND PLAINTIFF PROTUS WAMALWA SISUNGO .................................................... 23RD PLAINTIFF PROTUS WAMALWA SISUNGO .................................................... 24TH PLAINTIFF RICHARD KIPRONO MIBEI ......................................................... 25TH PLAINTIFF JOHN KIPROTICH KIPTUM ......................................................... 26TH PLAINTIFF JOSEPH ADIMO ................................................................................ 27TH PLAINTIFF JOHANA TIROP KOECH ................................................................ 28TH PLAINTIFF WILSON KIPNGETIHC CHERUIYOT- ......................................... 29TH PLAINTIFF CATHERINE BETTY NYAMBURA MATHENGE ....................... 30TH PLAINTIFF MARY CHEPKEMOI LANGAT ....................................................... 31ST PLAINTIFF ELIMA KOSGEI ................................................................................. 32ND PLAINTIFF EUNICE GATHONI KANGUURA ................................................. 33RD PLAINTIFF AUGUSTINE OKUMU ONYANGOHELEN NDUTA MWAI- ..... 34TH PLAINTIFF FRANCIS KKIPOO NGETICH ....................................................... 35TH PLAINTIFF JACKSON MUSEU IKUNI ............................................................... 36TH PLAINTIFF BONFAS OKELO SIAMBE ............................................................... 37TH PLAINTIFF CATHERINE MUTHONI MUSILI .................................................. 38TH PLAINTIFF LUKAH MURREY KEMBOI ........................................................... 39TH PLAINTIFF JAMES SEWE NYAGUTI .................................................................. 40TH PLAINTIFF DANIEL KIPSANG KORIR .............................................................. 41ST PLAINTIFF WESLYE CHERUIYOT ROTICH .................................................... 42ND PLAINTIFF DAVID KAMAU NJENGA ............................................................... 43RD PLAINTIFF ALFRED JOHATHAN BII ................................................................ 44TH PLAINTIFF FREDERIS MUSILI MWALILI ......................................................... 45TH PLAINTIFF LEONARD CHEROP KIBIWOT ..................................................... 46TH PLAINTIFF SAMUEL KIPLAGAT AYABEI ......................................................... 47TH PLAINTIFF SIMON KIPTOO KIPSANG ............................................................ 48TH PLAINTIFF BENJAMIN KIBOR YANO .............................................................. 49TH PLAINTIFF JAMES CHUMO ................................................................................. 50TH PLAINTIFF SIMON OLE KASALE ........................................................................ 51ST PLAINTIFF https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18040/eng@2025-12-05 2

page 2 of 5

DUGILAS LEMAYION OLENKORIKA ......................................... 52ND PLAINTIFF GEORGE GITHUA KAMA ............................................................... 53RD PLAINTIFF JACKSON KAMAU GACHA ........................................................... 54TH PLAINTIFF ALICE LANGAT ................................................................................ 55TH PLAINTIFF AND TELKOM KENYA LIMITED .......................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT GILGIL TELECOMNS INDUSTRIES LIMITED ......................... 2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. The Plaintiffs bring a Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2025 for orders as hereunder: 1. Spent. 2. That the Honorable Court be pleased to review the Judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Luka Kimaru dated 13TH July, 2011 directing that the salary arrears and house allowance arrears due to each Plaintiff be calculated on the basis of the tables produced by PW3 as Plaintiff’s exhibits No.8 and No. 9 by entering Judgment for the Plaintiffs/Applicants for the specific sum of Kshs.46,569,184.14 (being Kshs.15,733,033.55 principal sum + Kshs.30,836,250.59 interest from 13th July 2011 to 30th June 2025) in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision dated 4th November 2016, 6th November 2020 and 5th June 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2013 Gilgil Telcoms Industries Limited –v- Duncan Nderitu & 55 Others. 3. That costs of this Application be borne by the Defendants/Respondents. 2. The Application is supported by affidavit evidence of the 1st Plaintiff (Duncan Nderitu) purportedly offered on behalf of the other Plaintiffs. It is averred inter alia that on 13th July, 2011 Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiffs for a declaration that they were entitled to improved terms of service negotiated by their Union until termination of their respective employment. My elder brother Hon. Justice Kimaru J, as he then was, is said to have directed in his Judgment that tables exhibited by the Plaintiff’s Witness No.3 as Exhibits 8 and 9 would form the basis of computation of the Plaintiffs’ salary and house allowance arrears up to 15th June 2006 when their services were terminated. 3. The Defendants’ Appeal to the Court of Appeal vide CACA NO.147 of 2013 was partially allowed. Whereas this court’s Judgment declaring that the Plaintiffs were entitled to benefits under the raised terms of service was upheld, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court of Appeal in its order of 4th November, 2016 set aside the order directing calculation of the accrued arrears using the stated tables, for not being specific. 4. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants declined to execute a draft order prepared in terms of the superior court’s decision. An Application dated 29th November, 2018 for Settlement of Terms the Plaintiffs subsequently filed in the Court of Appeal elicited an order dated 6th November, 2020 reiterating the latter’s Judgment delivered on 4th November, 2016 to the extent that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the benefits under the revised terms of service. This court’s orders requiring computation of the benefits using the aforestated Tables 8 and 9 was however, set aside as not specific. The Plaintiffs https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18040/eng@2025-12-05 3

page 3 of 5

lament that the Defendants yet again refused to endorse a draft order extracted from this latest Court of Appeal’s decision. 5. The 1st Plaintiff continues to state that the Defendants were not satisfied and mounted another challenge to the Court of Appeal by an Application dated 9th December, 2020. The superior court is said to have again underscored its previous stance by order given on 5th June, 2025. In light of the Court of Appeal’s clarification on the dispute , the plaintiff’s now institute this Application seeking review of this Court’s , of 13th July, 2011 by entering of Judgment in their favour for a specific sum of Kshs.46,569,184.14 to make it capable of execution. This figure is arrived at on the basis of copies of the Plaintiff’s’ payslips and calculations based on Personel Circular Nos. 2B of 2001, and 1B of 2003 as well as 10% increment awarded in 2004 and 2005 (Exhibited as “DNN5”). 6. In the premises, the court is urged to allow the Application to bring an end to this tussle that has been pending for over 19 years. 7. The Defendants did not file a reply despite evidence of service of the Application upon their Advocates. No submissions have been filed on the Appeal. 8. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 made thereunder govern an Application such as the instant one for review of court Judgments, decrees and orders in instances where an Appeal is allowed but none has been lodged, or Appeal has been determined. Orders 45 of the Rules supra provides that a Judgment decree of order may be reviewed on the grounds of an error or mistake on the face of the record; or on account of discovery of evidence that with due diligence could not be presented earlier; or for any other sufficient cause. 9. The Plaintiffs herein seem to crave review of the court’s Judgment of 13th July, 2011 and resultant decree on account of a mistake or error on the face of the record. As pointed out by the Court of Appeal, the error or mistake apparent in the Judgment is omission to state a specific sum awarded to the plaintiffs. 10. In Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates –Vs- Kago (2001) eKLR) among many other judicial determinations, it was observed that where a court’s Judgment, decree or order is sought to be reviewed on the basis of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, such mistake or error must be self-evident and not require extensive or elaborate argument to establish. The mistake or error must therefore be such that it stares one in the face. 11. In the instant matter, the Court of Appeal itself has pointed out the mistake or error in the Judgment of 13th July, 2011. Although the Judgment does not specify the sum awarded to the Plaintiffs in the Liquidated Claim, there is a clear pointer as to what the court had in mind. The Defendants have not responded to the Plaintiffs’ position that the sum the court was awarding them is Kshs.46,569,184.14. It is therefore deemed that the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs’ understanding of the court’s Judgment dated 13th July 2011. 12. In the result, the Application is allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2025. 13. Ruling accordingly. .................................... J. M. NANG’EA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18040/eng@2025-12-05 4

page 4 of 5

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. In the presence of: The Plaintiffs’ Advocate, Mr. Ochieng for Ms. Awuor The Defendant’s Advocate, Absent Court Assistant, Justine. ................................. J. M. NANG’EA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18040/eng@2025-12-05 5

page 5 of 5