Zakary Mwangi Muriu v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers & another [2014] KEELRC 1474 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that workers must be paid for extra duties actually performed, even without formal appointment, but unproven claims fail.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies as prayed for
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was entitled to pay for performing the branch secretary's duties during the incumbent's three months' leave
The claimant was entitled to Kshs. 45,000.00 as reasonable pay, since there were clear arrangements that he perform the duties despite the absence of a formal acting appointment
Evidence showed the claimant discharged the branch secretary's duties for three months while the substantive holder was on leave. Although the respondents asserted there was no acting appointment, the court found clear arrangements between the parties existed. The respondent's internal failure to formalise the acting appointment could not be visited upon the claimant, who was entitled to the reasonable pay claimed.
Whether a part-time official could claim half salary for a period of suspension
The claim failed because a part-time official earns only sitting allowances for meetings attended and no basis for the salary claim was established
The court accepted the conciliator's factual position, undisputed before it, that the claimant's entitlement as a part-time union official under the respondent's constitution was limited to sitting allowances for meetings attended. In the absence of proof of any basis for a salary entitlement during suspension, that head of claim necessarily failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties have clear arrangements for an employee to perform higher duties, the employer's internal failure to make a formal acting appointment cannot defeat the employee's entitlement to reasonable pay for the work done.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for Kshs. 70,000.00 to be paid by 1.02.2015, failing interest at court rates from 04.02.2014 till full payment
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant fixed at Kshs. 25,000.00
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the employment dispute (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Kshs. 90,000.00 being half salary for the period of suspension as a part-time official
A part-time official could only earn sitting allowances for meetings attended and the claimant did not establish the basis of the prayer
Kshs. 53,000.00 received as judgment sum in favour of Josphat Nyaga Njoka
The claim failed; the amount arose from private arrangements with Njoka and the claimant failed to establish the basis of the claim
Costs
Claimant awarded costs of the suit fixed at Kshs. 25,000.00
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In conclusion judgment is entered for the claimant against the respondent for the respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.70, 000.00 by 1.02.2015 failing interest at court rates to be payable from the date of the suit 04.02.2014 till full payment.
there were clear arrangements between the parties that the claimant performs such duties and the respondents' internal deficiencies to make and convey the formal acting appointment cannot be visited upon the claimant
The claimant has partially succeeded in his claim and is awarded costs of the suit fixed at Kshs. 25,000.00.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's internal chronology is contradictory: it states the dispute was referred for conciliation by the court order of 19.09.2014, yet also states the conciliator's report was filed in court on the same date, 19.09.2014.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zakary Mwangi Muriu v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers & another [2014] KEELRC 1474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1474/eng@2014-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.