David Kimani And 9 Others v Geothermal Development Company Limited [2013] KEELRC 962 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether income tax deductions from judgment dues were justified
Only claimants Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6, earning Kshs.20,160.00 per month, were liable to income tax; the applicant had paid the decretal sum less such tax, and the claimants were entitled to the balance of Kshs.681,836.58 less income tax due from those claimants
The court found it undisputed that the claimants had been paid in satisfaction of the judgment but without explanation of the deductions. The claimants submitted that only those earning above the threshold were taxable under section 49(2) of the Employment Act; the respondent conceded. The court accepted that position and ordered payment of the deducted amount within a fixed period, failing which execution would continue.
Legal principles established
#- Awards under section 49(2) of the Employment Act, 2007 to claimants earning Kshs.720.00 per day (Kshs.20,160.00 per month) attract income tax; deductions as tax from judgment dues must be explained to the court
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to pay the claimants Kshs.681,836.58 less income tax due from claimants Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 by 15.1.2014 failing which execution for the due pay to continue
- 2.Stay of execution until 15.1.2014
- 3.The respondent to pay costs of the application fixed at Kshs.5,000.00
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 16(1)(3)(4), 31(2) and 36 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010; Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Kimani And 9 Others v Geothermal Development Company Limited [2013] KEELRC 962 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/962/eng@2013-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.