[2013] KEELRC 772 (KLR)
The court found that the specific issue of erroneous computation of terminal dues had not been previously ventilated or determined in earlier applications. Upon reviewing the figures provided by the Claimant and adopted in the original Award, the court established that there was a clear mathematical error on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 772 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Phinias Aseneka Ngeresa; Respondent: Sarova Hotels Limited t/a Sarova Stanley
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 752(N) of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application for review allowed; award reviewed and corrected; each party to bear own costs; claimant to pay auctioneer's charges
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Award, Computation of Terminal Dues, Error on Face of Record
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Phinias Aseneka Ngeresa
Applicant
Sarova Hotels Limited t/a Sarova Stanley
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent is entitled to an order for review of the Award delivered on 27th May 2010 on the basis of an alleged error in computation of terminal dues.
- 2 Whether the issue of computation of terminal dues had previously been determined and is therefore res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the specific issue of erroneous computation of terminal dues had not been previously ventilated or determined in earlier applications. Upon reviewing the figures provided by the Claimant and adopted in the original Award, the court established that there was a clear mathematical error on the face of the record. The correct cumulative figure for terminal dues was Kshs. 964,949, not Kshs. 1,270,933 as previously awarded. The court held that this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review under Rule 32(1)(b) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010. The Award was therefore reviewed and the erroneous figure substituted with the...
Court Disposition
application for review allowed; award reviewed and corrected; each party to bear own costs; claimant to pay auctioneer's charges
Orders
- The Award delivered on 27th May 2010 is reviewed by substituting the figure of Kshs. 1,270,933 under Claim (i) on page 7 with Kshs. 964,949.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 752(N) OF 2009
PHINIAS ASENEKA NGERESA........................................................CLAIMANT
VS
SAROVA HOTELS LIMITED T/A SAROVA STANELY...................RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. On 27th May 2010, Chemmuttut J (as he then was) delivered an ex parte Award in favour of the Claimant for the sum of Kshs. 1,381,597 made up of Kshs. 1,270,933 in terminal benefits and Kshs. 110,664 in compensation for unfair termination of employment.
2. An application to set aside the ex parte Award was dismissed by the Trial Judge on 26th July 2011. A subsequent application for stay of execution pending appeal was dismissed by Nduma J on 13th March 2013. Following a Decree issued by the Court on 11th July 2013 and proclamation of the Respondent'sgoods on 22nd July 2013, the Respondent moved the Court under Certificate of Urgency seeking orders for stay of execution and review of the Award on the basis of an alleged error on the computation of the terminal dues awarded to the Claimant.
The Respondent's Submissions
4. Mr. Wachira for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent had paid the sum of Kshs. 758,996. 70 being the correct amount due net of statutory tax. According to the Respondent, the correct figure before addition of the 6 months' salary compensation ought to have been Kshs. 964,949 and not 1,270,933. The total decretal amount before statutory tax would therefore be Kshs.1,075,613 and not 1,381,597 as reflected in the Decree and warrant of attachment.
The Claimant's Reply
5. In opposing the Respondent's application, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the issue had been raised before and dismissed. According to the Claimant, the error was not clerical but divergence on the number of years the Claimant had served with the Respondent.
6. The case giving rise to the Award in question was heard in the absence of the Respondent who had been duly served. An application for review made on 15th July 2010 was dismissed in July 2011. The Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th August 2011 and an application for stay of execution on 16th August 2012. The application for stay was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.
7. In a Replying Affidavit sworn by the Claimant, it was deponed that the instant application was a back door attempt by the Respondent to be heard on the claim, which right the Respondent had waived by failing to attend the hearing in spite of due service. The application was meant to deny the Claimant the fruits of his Award.
Ruling by the Court
8. The only issue for determination by the Court is whether the Respondent is entitled to an order for review of the Award of the Court delivered on 27th May 2010. It is the Claimant's case that an application for review was heard and dismissed by the Court and the matter is therefore res judicata. The Respondent on the other hand contends that the issue currently before the Court, being erroneous computation of terminal dues is distinct from the one raised in the application dated 16th August 2011.
9. I have had occasion to peruse the Rulings delivered by Chemmuttut J on 26th July 2011 and by Nduma J on 13th March 2013 and have satisfied myself that the issue raised in the current application being computation of the terminal dues payable to the Claimant was not ventilated in any of the applications canvassed before the Court.
10. Rule 32 (1) (b) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010 provides that:
32. (1) A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order of the Court may apply for a review of the award, judgment or ruling—
(b) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
11. A simple addition of the figures provided by the Claimant in his Memorandum of Claim as particulars of loss and damage which were adopted by the Court in its Award gives a cumulative figure of Kshs. 964,949 and not 1,270,933. Figures do not lie and there is no need for further argument on this matter. There is clearly an error on the face of the Award of the Court delivered on 27th May 2010. The Respondent's application is therefore allowed and the Award is reviewed by substituting the figure of Kshs.1,270,933 under Claim (i) on page 7 with the correct figure of Kshs. 964,949.
12. Each party will bear their own costs and the Claimant will pay the Auctioneer's charges.
DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
...............................................................................................Claimant
…........................................................................................Respondent