https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1724

Kisenga v Ongair Ltd (Cause E1090 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1724 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1724 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E1090 of 2024 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 Between Lily Mkanjala Kisenga Claimant and Ongair Limited Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant filed an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 9th April 2026 seeking review of the judgment dated 30th October 2025. The application was brought (Under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1(1) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 33 & 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; and all other enabling provisions of the law) for orders-1.Spent2.The Honourable Court be pleased to review, correct, vary and/or rectify Paragraph 31(b) and the consequential Paragraph 31(f) of its Judgment dated 30th October 2025 so as to reflect the Court's own reasoned finding of five (5) months' compensation instead of the erroneous four (4) months.3.The corrected orders by this Honourable Court do read as follows:"b)Compensation for the wrongful/constructive dismissal equivalent of five (5) months' salary at Kshs. 108,257 per month, totaling Kshs. 541,285/-.""(f)Interest on the total sum of Kshs. 1,057,775 (being the corrected sums in (b), (c) and (d) above) awarded at Court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full."4.Costs of this application. 2.The grounds of the application were as follows-(a)The Court delivered its Judgment on 30th October 2025 wherein it expressly found in Paragraph 21 (page 12 of the Judgment) that: "The claimant resigned on 18th July 2018. Taking into account the 2 and 2-month period of work and the non-payment of the salary, the court finds that compensation equivalent to 5 months' salary is adequate compensation for the constructive dismissal.(b)Despite the foregoing clear finding, the final disposition in Paragraph 31(b) erroneously awarded only four (4) months' salary, stated as: "Compensation for the wrongful dismissal equivalent of 4 months salary @Kshs. 108,257 total sum of Kshs. 433,028/-"(c)The said discrepancy is an error apparent on the face of the record and an accidental slip/omission. The Court's reasoned conclusion was five (5) months, yet the typed order reflects only four (4) months. No reasons were given anywhere in the Judgment for departing from the 5-month finding.(d)The error is purely clerical/arithmetical and does not require re-opening of the merits of the case. The monthly salary figure used by the Court (Kshs. 108,257) remains unchanged. Correcting it will simply give effect to what the Court itself determined to be "adequate compensation".(e)Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."(f)The slip rule does apply in this instant case as the correction is necessary to give effect to the actual intention of the court and ensure that the judgment is enforceable.(g)Allowing the application will be in the interest of justice and ensure that the Court corrects the order that is apparent on the face of the record.(h)The application can be granted by the Court ex-parte in the interests of justice without inter partes hearing as the Respondent has never filed a defence or appeared in these proceedings and will therefore suffer no prejudice from the correction of this obvious error. 3.The application is further supported by the annexed affidavit of Lily Mkanjala Kisenga, sworn on the 9th April 2026, where she annexed the impugned Judgment of 30th October 2025. 4.The application was unopposed. The respondent never entered appearance in the matter. 5.The application was canvassed orally before the court on the 4th June. Decision 6.The application seeks for the review of the Judgment of the Court dated 30th October 2025. The Employment and Labor Relations Court (Procedural)Rules ,2024 provide for review of the Judgment as follows-“74.Review(1)A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, may within reasonable time, apply for a review of the judgment or ruling—(a)if there is discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by that person at the time when the decree was passed or the order made;(b)on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;(c)if the judgment or ruling requires clarification; or(d)for any other sufficient reason.(2)An application for review of a decree or order of the Court under subrule (1) shall be made to the judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed or to any other judge if that judge is not attached to the Court station.(3)A party seeking review of a decree or order of the Court shall apply to the Court by way of notice of motion supported by an affidavit and shall file a copy of the Judgment or decree or ruling or order to be reviewed.(4)The Court shall, upon hearing an application for review, deliver a ruling allowing or dismissing the application.(5)Where an application for review is granted, the Court may review its decision to conform to the findings of the review or quash its decision and order that the suit be heard again.(6)An order made for a review of a decree or order shall not be subject to further review.’ 6.The court on perusal of the application finds that the clerical error was apparent on the face of the court. The Court delivered its Judgment on 30th October 2025 wherein it expressly found in Paragraph 21 (page 12 of the Judgment) that: "The claimant resigned on 18th July 2018. Taking into account the 2 and 2-month period of work and the non-payment of the salary, the court finds that compensation equivalent to 5 months' salary is adequate compensation for the constructive dismissal. 7.Despite the foregoing finding, the final disposition in Paragraph 31(b) erroneously awarded only four (4) months' salary, stated as:-"Compensation for the wrongful dismissal equivalent of 4 months salary @Kshs. 108,257 total sum of Kshs. 433,028/-". 8.The said discrepancy is an error apparent on the face of the record and an accidental slip/omission. The Court's reasoned conclusion was five (5) months, yet the typed order reflects only four (4) months. No reasons were given anywhere in the Judgment for departing from the 5-month finding. The error is purely clerical and does not require re-opening of the merits of the case. The monthly salary figure used by the Court (Kshs. 108,257) remains unchanged. Correcting it will simply give effect to what the Court itself determined to be adequate compensation. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." The slip rule does apply in this instant case as the correction is necessary to give effect to the actual intention of the court and ensure that the judgment is enforceable. 9.In the upshot, the application is allowed as follows-a.The Honourable Court be pleased to review, correct, vary and rectify Paragraph 31(b) and the consequential Paragraph 31(f) of its Judgment dated 30th October 2025 so as to reflect the Court's own reasoned finding of five (5) months' compensation instead of the erroneous four (4) months. 10.The corrected orders by this Honourable Court do read as follows:-“b)Compensation for the wrongful/constructive dismissal equivalent of five (5) months' salary at Kshs. 108,257 per month, totaling Kshs. 541,285/-."“(f) Interest on the total sum of Kshs. 1,057,775 (being the corrected sums in (b), (c) and (d) above) awarded at Court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full." 11.No order as to costs. 12.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In the presence of:Court Assistant: OtienoClaimant/applicant – OtienoRespondent – no appearance