Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 490 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 958 (KLR)

Jackson Kimani Waweru & 5 others v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 958 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2018
2,490 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court confirmed that unpaid wages are calculated up to each employee's last day at work, not up to the date of judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 3rd and 4th respondents filed a Notice of Motion dated 18 July 2018 under Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedures) Rules, 2016 seeking interpretation and clarification of paragraph 57 of the court's judgment, which ordered payment of wages accrued/due up to dates of separation following a finding that the claimants' suspensions were unlawful. The parties could not agree on computations: the respondents contended that 'dates of separation' meant death, dismissal, retirement or transfer, and that the 1st claimant (transferred 5 November 2008), the 3rd claimant (retired in the public interest on 22 December 2009, died 5 September 2013), the 4th and 5th claimants (withdrew after reinstatement), and the 6th claimant (dismissed 21 December 2009) had differing entitlements. The claimants, through the 2nd claimant's affidavit, maintained that wages should be computed up to the date of judgment and that the consent order of 17 September 2010 remained binding. The court held that 'separation' means the end, exit or departure date of employment - the last date the employee was at work - not the date of judgment. It clarified that the 1st claimant was removed from the cause of action (his consent having been found vague), the 2nd claimant's cause was foundationally separate and not part of the cause of action, the 3rd claimant's last date at work was 22 December 2009, the 4th and 5th claimants' withdrawal on 17 January 2012 ended their claims, and the 6th claimant's separation date was 21 December 2009. The application was allowed, computations were to reflect these orders, and the security deposits were to be released accordingly.

Key legal issues

#
01

Meaning of 'separation' and 'dates of separation' in employment law

Holding

'Separation' refers to the end date, exit date and/or departure of the employee from employment with a given employer

Reasoning

The Employment Act, 2007 does not directly address 'separation', but the term can be inferred from 'termination' of employment when the employee exits, departs, or leaves employment in any lawful manner. The court construed paragraph 57 of its judgment accordingly, holding that wages accrued to each claimant's individual last date in employment, not to the date of judgment.

p. 3
02

Entitlement of the 1st claimant whose consent order was found vague

Holding

The 1st claimant was effectively removed from the cause of action and has not sought clarification on the consent found vague

Reasoning

The court had found it curious that the 1st Claimant, transferred to the City Council of Nairobi on 5 November 2008, was suspended in January 2009 on other grounds, and had found the consent of 17 September 2010 to pay half salaries vague. Since he had not moved the court for clarification on that consent, he was removed from the cause of action.

p. 3
03

Status of the 4th and 5th claimants who withdrew their claims

Holding

Having withdrawn their suits on 17 January 2012 after reinstatement, no claim exists for them

Reasoning

The 4th and 5th claimants were reinstated and withdrew their claims on 17 January 2012. A withdrawal of suit ended it and it cannot be revived for computation and payments; the orders of the court do not relate to these claimants as they have no existing suit against the respondents.

p. 3
04

Individual separation dates of the 3rd and 6th claimants

Holding

The 3rd claimant's last date in employment was 22 December 2009 and the 6th claimant's was 21 December 2009

Reasoning

The court fixed the 3rd claimant's date of separation at 22 December 2009 (the date his employment ceased), rejecting the argument that computation should run to his death. The 6th claimant, summarily dismissed on 21 December 2009, had his date of separation fixed at that date.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Separation dates in employment refer directly to the last date in employment and when the employee was last at work
  • Withdrawal of a suit ends it and it cannot be revived for computation and payments

Court orders

#
  1. 1.(a) The separation date is effectively the last day/date each claimant was at work, left work, exited work and or employment with the respondents ceased;
  2. 2.(b) The 1st claimant is removed from the cause of action;
  3. 3.(c) The 2nd claimant is not part of the cause of action herein;
  4. 4.(d) The 3rd claimant last date at work is 22nd December, 2009;
  5. 5.(e) The 4th and 5th claimants withdrew suit against the respondents on 17th January, 2012 and no claim(s) exists therefrom;
  6. 6.(f) The 6th claimant date of separation is effectively the 21st December, 2009 and dues shall be computed from such date.
  7. 7.The computations of owing dues and wages shall put the above orders into account.
  8. 8.The security deposits by the 3rd and 4th respondents shall be released putting the above into account.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActNot specified (separation/termination provisions discussed)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedures) Rules, 2016Rule 33
  • Public Service Commission (Local Authority Officers) Regulations, 2007Regulation 24

Cases cited (2)

  • Max Masoud Roshankar & another versus Sky Aero Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Samuel Chacha Mwita versus Kenya Medical Research Institute
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedures) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jackson Kimani Waweru & 5 others v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 958 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 490 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/958/eng@2018-10-03

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