https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1340

Mwangi v Ecolab East Africa (EA) Limited (Cause E937 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1340 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1340 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E937 of 2024 SC Rutto, J May 15, 2026 Between Simon Mwangi Claimant and Ecolab East Africa (Ea) Limited Respondent Ruling 1.By way of a judgment delivered on 1st December 2025, the Court made the following final orders: -(112)In light of the foregoing, the Claimant’s Claim is dismissed in its entirety, with no orders as to costs.(113)The Respondent’s Counterclaim is allowed in the sum of Kshs 287,321.00, representing the retention bonus. There will be no orders as to costs on the Counterclaim. 2.Consequently, the Claimant/Applicant filed the present Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 seeking the following orders: -1.Spent. 2.That this Honourable Court be pleased to correct and/or clarify the manifest error and/or accidental slip appearing in the judgment delivered on 1st December 2025 regarding the conflict between the findings in paragraph 106 and the final orders in paragraphs 112 and 113. 3.That the Honourable Court be pleased to clarify that the Claimant is awarded the admitted bonus of Kshs 2,583,679.00 as per the findings in paragraph 106 of the judgment. 4.That this Honourable Court be pleased to order a set off between the Claimant’s award of Kshs 2,583,679 and the Respondent’s successful counterclaim of Kshs 287,321.00, resulting in the decretal sum of Kshs 2,296,358.00 payable to the Claimant. 5.That the said decretal sum of Kshs 2,296,358.00 do attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. 6.That the costs of this application be borne by the Respondent. 3.The Notice of Motion is anchored on the grounds set out on its face and the Affidavit sworn by Simon Mwangi, the Claimant herein. The grounds in support of the Motion are that, at paragraph 106 of the Judgment delivered on 1st December 2025, the Court made a conclusive finding that the Claimant was entitled to the claimed bonus of Kshs 2,583,679.00 as pleaded in the Claim dated 30th October 2024. Despite this finding, the final orders at paragraphs 112 and 113 paradoxically dismissed the Claimant’s claim in its entirety while at the same time allowing the Respondent’s counterclaim in the sum of Kshs 287,312.00. 4.The Claimant contends that there exists a clear and fundamental inconsistency between the Court’s reasoned findings and the final orders. 5.It is the Claimant’s further contention that the inconsistency in the Judgment amounts to a clerical and/or arithmetical error arising during the drafting of the final orders and does not reflect the Court’s substantive determination regarding the admitted bonus claim. 6.The Respondent opposed the Claimant’s Notice of Motion through the Replying Affidavit sworn by its Vice President and Sub-Saharan Africa Country Cluster, Marcel De Broize. 7.Mr. De Broize deposes that, by filing the present Application, the Claimant has failed to undertake a holistic reading of the Judgment and has instead selectively relied on portions perceived to be favourable to his case. 8.He avers that whereas paragraph 106 of the Judgment acknowledged that the Claimant had earned the 2023 bonus, as conceded by the Respondent, paragraphs 100 and 101 equally affirmed that the Claimant’s resignation was voluntary, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the Claimant’s suit. 9.Mr. De Broize further deposes that, in paragraphs 107 to 111 of the Judgment, the Court upheld the claw-back amount of USD 22,000, which set off the bonus of Kshs 2,583,679.00, thereby yielding a net debt of Kshs 287,321.00 in favour of the Respondent and consequently allowing the counterclaim. 10.He further states that the final order at paragraph 112 constitutes the operative portion of the Judgment as it encapsulates the Court’s ultimate determination of the dispute. 11.According to Mr. De Broize, had the Court intended to award the bonus to the Claimant, it would have expressly done so in the dispositive orders, just as it did with respect to the Counterclaim. 12.It is his position that the Court is functus officio and is therefore barred in law from making substantive adjustments to its judgment. The Respondent contends that the present Application seeks to introduce a substantial variation by securing a net award of Kshs 2,296,358.00 together with interest in favour of the Claimant, which in effect amounts to a disguised appeal or review not permissible under the slip rule. Analysis and Determination 13.Pursuant to Rule 74 (1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, this Court may review its orders where any of the following grounds are established: -a.if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after 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; ord.for any other sufficient reason. 14.In the instant case, it is evident that the review sought by the Claimant relates to the clarification of the Court’s final orders and the attendant arithmetic computations. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the instant Notice of Motion falls within the purview of Rule 74 (1) aforesaid. 15.In the Judgment delivered on 1st December 2025, the Court found that the Claimant was entitled to the admitted bonus in the sum of Kshs 2,583,679.00. 16.The Court further found that, since the Claimant had resigned from employment on 31st March 2024, prior to 30th September 2024, and having determined that the resignation was not occasioned by constructive dismissal, the Respondent was entitled to enforce the claw-back clause contained in the retention agreement. It is on that basis that the Respondent’s Counterclaim was allowed. 17.It is worth noting that, given that the retention bonus was USD 22,000, the Court took into account the admitted bonus of Kshs 2,583,679.00 due to the Claimant and, upon set-off, arrived at the sum of Kshs 287,321.00 as the amount payable under the Counterclaim. 18.On the basis of the foregoing, and for clarity, the Court hereby reviews its Judgment delivered on 1st December 2025 in the following terms: -a.Paragraph 112 of the Judgment is hereby reviewed to read as follows: “In view of the foregoing, the Claimant’s claim substantially fails save for the admitted bonus of Kshs 2,583,679.00.”b.Paragraph 113 of the Judgment is hereby reviewed to read as follows: “The admitted bonus due to the Claimant shall be set off against the retention bonus of USD 22,000, and consequently, the Counterclaim is allowed in the sum of Kshs 287,321.00.”c.A new paragraph 114 is hereby introduced to read as follows: “There shall be no orders as to costs in respect of both the Claim and the Counterclaim.” 19.There shall be no order as to costs in respect of the instant Notice of Motion. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYERI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.………………………………STELLA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of:For the Claimant/Applicant Ms. Ndeto instructed by Mr. OnganyaFor the Respondent No appearanceCourt Assistant NdatiORDERIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.STELLA RUTTOJUDGE