Fredrick Ouma v Spectre International Ltd [2013] KEELRC 580 (KLR)

The court held that fair remuneration requires adequacy, commensuration with services and certainty. Remuneration must be discussed and agreed before services are rendered and cannot be unilaterally reduced to the worker's detriment absent agreement. The respondent offered no explanation for the reduction, so the claimant's legitimate expectation to his anticipated salary was breached and the reduction was unfair and unjustified.

Although payslips showed colleagues earned substantially more, the claimant failed to show they were employed on the same day or had similar qualifications. Differing telephone benefits even suggested different duties. Section 5(3) of the Employment Act permits distinction on inherent requirements of a job, and salaries of officers serving in the same capacity may vary due to seniority and experience.

The termination letter cited the claimant's 'false and insulting allegations', but the only conduct identified was the advocate's letter, which merely set out grievances and demands. It contained no abusive or insulting language. Section 46(h) provides that initiating a complaint or legal proceedings against the employer is not a fair reason for dismissal. The dismissal was thus unfair and was converted to normal termination.

The court awarded the actual salary differential for 16 months, house allowance at 15% of salary given the absence of any contract inclusive of housing, and 12 months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination. Other heads of claim failed for want of proof.