Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause (number not stated in judgment; consolidated with Cause No. 53 of 2013)· [2015] KEELRC 806 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Maridadi Flowers Ltd [2015] KEELRC 806 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 June 2015
RSRadido Stephen
1,584 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that housing allowance is a legal minimum wage right that collective bargaining agreements override unless contracts clearly include it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Union claimed on behalf of named Grievants that their remuneration did not include housing allowance, contrary to section 31 of the Employment Act, 2007 and a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Union and the Agricultural Employers Association effective 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2013, which provided a house allowance of Kshs 1,800/-. The termination of employment claims were settled by consent on 9 December 2013, leaving the housing allowance question for determination. The Cause was consolidated with Cause No. 53 of 2013 by order of Ongaya J of 6 May 2014. The Respondent contended that remuneration was inclusive of house allowance as a contractual term, producing contracts with a generic provision incorporating Kshs 1,000/- as house allowance within a daily piece-rate wage. Radido J held that section 31 makes provision of housing or an allowance a basic minimum right, but that a CBA prevails over statutory minimums and inconsistent individual contracts. The contracts relied on by the Respondent were ambiguous as to piece work and the daily rates were below the prescribed statutory rate under Legal Notice No. 98 of 2010, so the Court could not assume the wages carried an inclusive housing element. Clause 12 of the CBA superseded the individual contracts. The Court found that wages did not include house allowance and awarded specified sums to eleven Grievants. Two Grievants, Mary Wanjiru Njoroge and Robi Davies Chacha, who separated before the CBA took effect, were excluded. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment delivered at Nakuru on 26 June 2015.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Grievants' remuneration included housing allowance

Holding

It did not; the Respondent was ordered to pay each Grievant specified house allowance sums

Reasoning

Section 31 of the Employment Act obliges an employer to provide housing or pay an allowance unless the contract consolidates a housing element in the wage or a CBA provides such consolidation. The contracts produced were ambiguous as to piece work and the daily rates were below prescribed statutory rates, making it untenable to infer an inclusive housing element. Clause 12 of the CBA, agreed at Kshs 1,800/-, superseded the individual contracts and was more generous than the statutory minimum.

p. 3
02

The status of the collective bargaining agreement vis-a-vis individual contracts

Holding

The CBA prevailed over the individual contracts' housing provisions

Reasoning

Both parties admitted the validity of the CBA effective 1 August 2011, which expressly provided for a house allowance of Kshs 1,800/- where housing was not provided. That provision was more generous than the statutory minimum and therefore superseded the inconsistent individual contract terms.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 31 of the Employment Act makes provision of housing or payment of housing allowance a basic minimum right of the employee with a correlative duty on the employer
  • A collective bargaining agreement prevails over statutory minimums and inconsistent individual contracts
  • Where piece work is intended, it must be clearly and unambiguously stated in the contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declared that the wages paid to the Grievants did not include an element to cover house allowance
  2. 2.Ordered the Respondent to pay each Grievant the following awards: Mary Wanjiru Njoki Kshs 27,000/-; Evans Nyakondo Nyakwema Kshs 30,600/-; Rose Bwari Omonyi Kshs 32,400/-; Rolyne Namarone Sarai Kshs 30,600/-; Wilkister N. Motuanga Kshs 32,400/-; Hyline Moraa Otieno Kshs 28,800/-; Alphine N. Lucas Kshs 27,000/-; Peter Wandera Juma Kshs 21,600/-; Lucy Wanjiku Thama Kshs 30,600/-; Periah Kemunto Kshs 37,800/-; Beth N. Ontita Kshs 18,600/-
  3. 3.Excluded Mary Wanjiru Njoroge and Robi Davies Chacha from the benefit of the collective bargaining agreement
  4. 4.Each party to bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 31(1) and (2); section 2; sections 9, 10(1)(e) and 37
  • Labour Institutions Actminimum monthly wages and daily/hourly rates provisions (sections not specified)
  • Legal Notice No. 98 of 2010prescribed daily rate of Kshs 298/15
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the reserved question of housing allowance under the Employment Act, 2007 (statutory provision not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Maridadi Flowers Ltd [2015] KEELRC 806 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause (number not stated in judgment; consolidated with Cause No. 53 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/806/eng@2015-06-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.