H. Young & Company (E.A) Limited v Okoth & another (Civil Appeal 51 of 2020) [2025] KECA 466 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed employers must pay proven overtime claims they cannot rebut with evidence, costing KenGen Kshs.942,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were entitled to overtime pay
Yes. The staff movement summary report showed the respondents were at work for more than the contractual eight hours per day, and the appellant's explanation that they merely waited for pool transport was unsupported by evidence.
The CBA provided for overtime at 1.5 times the normal hourly rate and double on Sundays for hours worked beyond the normal eight. Documentary evidence of clock-in and clock-out times showed the respondents were on site beyond normal hours. The appellant's assertion that employees did not work until 8.00 a.m. and stopped at 5.00 p.m. was deemed incredible and unsupported. The claim was proved on a balance of probabilities and the appellant led no rebuttal evidence.
Whether the award of Kshs.942,000.00 in overtime pay was proved to the required standard
Yes. The amount was pleaded, computed using the CBA rates, and uncontroverted by any evidence from the appellant.
The respondents produced a computation sheet founded on the CBA overtime rates, which the appellant did not contest. Overtime records and payment information were within the employer's custody, so under Section 112 of the Evidence Act the burden of disproving the claim lay with the appellant. Having led no evidence of controversion, the appellant failed to displace the pleaded and proved amount.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
- Once a claimant discharges the legal burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, the evidentiary burden shifts to the opposing party to adduce evidence in rebuttal; mere denials are insufficient.
- Where a fact, such as the payment of overtime allowances, is especially within the knowledge of the employer who keeps the employment records, the burden of proving or disproving that fact rests on the employer under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
- An employer who installs a clocking in and out (biometric) system cannot disown the reports generated by that system when they are produced in evidence against it.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under its appellate jurisdiction over Employment and Labour Relations Court decisions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njuguna v Kiu Construction Company Limited (Cause 1742 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 3008 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 3008 (KLR)30 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "H. Young & Company (E.A) Limited v Okoth & another (Civil Appeal 51 of 2020) [2025] KECA 466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/466/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.