Marshal Wandera Ouma v Transoceanic Projects & Development Kenya [2015] KEELRC 1120 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a redundancy claim because the worker could not prove his salary had been raised from Kshs.125,000 to Kshs.175,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's salary was reviewed from Kshs.125,000 to Kshs.175,000 per month
The salary remained Kshs.125,000 per month as per the contract; the review was not proved
The contract of employment fixed the salary at Kshs.125,000 subject to review. The Claimant's supporting documents - a piece of paper of unknown authorship and emails without figures - did not establish any actual adjustment. He was in employment for nearly two years after the alleged review but produced no Pay Advice showing Kshs.175,000. The court therefore held the recalculation based on Kshs.175,000 was incorrect.
Whether the redundancy benefits paid complied with Section 40 of the Employment Act
The Respondent paid the correct statutory redundancy benefits and acted fairly and legally
The validity of the redundancy was not contested; only the dues were. The court found the Respondent had paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, 32 days' leave encashment and severance at 15 days' salary for 5.5 years based on the correct monthly salary of Kshs.125,000. The Claimant's larger figure rested on an unproved salary and a mistaken formula of 15 days per month rather than per year.
Entitlement to 2 months' notice pay and additional leave pay
Both claims declined as unsupported by the contract or evidence
Clause 9(b) of the contract provided for 1 month notice or 1 month salary in lieu, and no document granted 2 months' notice. The Claimant was paid Kshs.133,333 for 32 days of annual leave but could not establish the basis for 12 further days. Both heads failed.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy benefits under Section 40 of the Employment Act are computed at 15 days' salary for each year completed in service, based on the contractual salary
- A claimed salary review must be proved by reliable documentary evidence such as pay advice, not by unsubstantiated papers
- Claims raised for the first time in closing submissions are an afterthought with no legal or factual foundation
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim has no merit and is dismissed in its totality
- 2.Costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes; Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010, Rule 27(1)(a)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marshal Wandera Ouma v Transoceanic Projects & Development Kenya [2015] KEELRC 1120 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 413 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1120/eng@2015-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.