Peter Kimeu Mose & 13 others v Mang Hotel & another [2015] KEELRC 940 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled employers must pay for staff uniforms and house allowances, but employees claiming overtime must prove their hours with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Overtime compensation
Claim dismissed; the Court adopted the Respondents' evidence that working hours were limited by the alcohol licence to 7.00 pm to 3.00 am, and an extra weekly off day reasonably compensated public holiday work
The Claimants asserted they worked 7.00 am to 3.00 am in the restaurant, butchery and bar, but produced no tangible evidence. The Respondents produced an Alcoholic Drink Licence authorising sale of alcoholic drinks from 7.00 pm to 3.00 am. The Court weighed the conflicting evidence and preferred the Respondents' version. It further held that since the law mandates only one rest day per week, granting two off days reasonably compensated work on public holidays.
Refund of uniform expenses
Claim allowed; employer must bear the cost of employee uniforms and requiring employees to buy their own is an unfair labour practice
The Respondents admitted employees were required to buy their own uniforms. The Court held that uniforms are an employer's cost and that employee acquiescence cannot cure this unfair labour practice. The defence that the claims lacked receipts was rejected because the Respondents did not counter the figures given by the 1st Claimant, which the Court adopted for tabulation.
House allowance
Claim allowed; on-duty sleeping arrangements were not reasonable housing accommodation under Section 31(1) of the Employment Act
Distinguishing Samuel Gachomo Chege v Jesse Kangethe Karuma, the Court found the Claimants were shop floor employees not allocated their own rooms and accommodated only while on duty. The shared rooftop rooms were merely a place to rest after late-night work, not housing under Section 31(1). The Court also applied Simiyu Kibengo Godfrey v Private Safaris (E.A) Limited on restricted, non-accompanied accommodation.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee is required to put on uniform while at work, the employer must provide the uniform at its own cost; requiring an employee to buy their own uniform is an unfair labour practice that cannot be cured by acquiescence
- Accommodation of an employee in a restricted, non-accompanied environment for work convenience does not amount to reasonable housing accommodation under Section 31(1) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent shall pay to each Claimant the sum of Kshs.3,200.00 being the cost of two shirts, two trousers and one pair of shoes per each year of employment from the date of employment to the date of termination
- 2.The 1st Respondent shall pay to each Claimant house allowance calculated at 15% of the agreed last salary from the date of employment until the date of termination
- 3.The awards shall be tabulated by Counsels for the parties and paid to the Claimants within the next thirty (30) days from the date of the award
- 4.The award amounts shall attract interest at court rates from the date of the award until payment in full
- 5.The 1st Respondent shall meet the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under employment and labour relations (Cause filed under the Court's jurisdiction over employment disputes)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Kimeu Mose & 13 others v Mang Hotel & another [2015] KEELRC 940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 267 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/940/eng@2015-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.