[2015] KEELRC 644 (KLR)
The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the computation of the claimant's terminal benefits, as the salary used in the judgment was KES 20,000 instead of the correct figure of KES 23,194 as evidenced by the claimant's payslip for May 2012. The court held that it is within the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 644 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Samson Kimani Gachara; Respondent: Auto Springs Manufacturers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2321 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application for review allowed; judgment sum corrected
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Terminal Benefits Calculation, Unlawful Termination, Salary Computation
- 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
Samson Kimani Gachara
Claimant
Auto Springs Manufacturers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the computation of the claimant's terminal benefits.
- 2 Whether the judgment required clarification regarding the salary figure used for calculation of the award.
- 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to a review and correction of the judgment amount.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the computation of the claimant's terminal benefits, as the salary used in the judgment was KES 20,000 instead of the correct figure of KES 23,194 as evidenced by the claimant's payslip for May 2012. The court held that it is within the law to review its judgment in such circumstances and that the applicant's request for correction was merited. Accordingly, the court allowed the application for review and corrected the final award to KES 401,918.88 to reflect the accurate computation based on the claimant's actual salary.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed; judgment sum corrected
Orders
- The final figure in the judgment awarded to the claimant is corrected to KES 401,918.88.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2321 OF 2012
(Before Hon. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa on 29th July, 2015)
SAMSON KIMANI GACHARA …………………………………………..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
AUTO SPRINGS MANUFACTURERS LIMITED …….....….……..…RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application before court is the one dated 11/5/2015. The Applicants seek orders for review of this court’s judgment given on 4/11/2012. The Applicants aver that they seek review on the grounds that:
There is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
The judgment requires clarification.
There are sufficient reasons to review the said Award.
2. The Applicants aver that in the judgment of the court under paragraph 16, the court found for the Claimant and awarded him judgment totaling 346,571/= less statutory deductions based on judgment of 20,000/= per month.
3. The Applicants however aver that this amounts should have been calculated using the salary of 23,194/= as per the Claimant’s pay slip of May 2012 and this is the figure the Respondent had used to calculate the claimant’s terminal benefits.
4. Based on this amount of 23,194/= the Applicants aver that the payments would be as follows:
1 month’s salary in lieu of notice = 23,194/=
June salary for 12 days worked
12/30 x 23,194 = 9,277/=
Leave days 19. 5 days
19. 5/21 x 23,194 = 21,537. 28
Gratuity for the period worked
3 years = 1 month salary for each
year worked = 3 x 23,194 = 69,582/=
12 months salary as compensation for
unlawful termination = 12 x 23,194 = 278,328/=
TOTAL = 401,918. 88/=
Less amount awarded = 346,571/=
Amount omitted = 55,347. 88
5. This is the correction the Applicants seek from this court to award and the Applicants aver that their prayer is fair and just in the circumstances.
6. The Respondents through served didn’t file any response to this application. The record reveals that the salary of the Applicant in June 2012 was 23,194/ as per Appendix SKG 3.
Under Rule 32 of Industrial Court (Procedure Rules) 2010:
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:-
if there is a discovery of new an importantmatter or evidence which, after the exercise ofdue diligence, was not within the knowledge ofthat person or could not be produced by thatperson at the time when the decree was passedor the order made; or
on account of some mistake or error apparenton the face of the record, or
on account of the award, judgment or rulingbeing in breach of any written law; or
if the award, the judgment or ruling requiresclarification; or
for any other sufficient reasons.
7. It is therefore within the law to review the judgment of this court as there is an error apparent on the record. I find the application for review merited and I allow it and correct the final figure in the judgment awarded as 401,918. 88/=.
Read in open Court this 29th day of July, 2015
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Chebii holding brief Rakoro for Claimant
No appearance for Respondent