Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELRC 1009 (KLR)

Wycliffe Okoth & another v H. Young & Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 1009 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 July 2019
MNMathews N. Nduma
1,153 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer was ordered to pay Kshs. 942,000 in unpaid overtime after its own clocking records proved staff worked extra hours.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st and 2nd claimants, former employees of the respondent whose work station was inside Hells Gate National Park, sued on 10th November 2014 for unpaid overtime of Kshs. 942,000 arising from a Collective Bargaining Agreement signed on 10th September 2013 between the respondent and the sector union. The claim covered the period of their employment from 8th May 2013 to 12th July 2014. The 2nd claimant, a time clerk who manned the clocking machine, testified that they clocked in before 7 a.m. and left after 5 p.m., worked more than the 8 normal hours, and were paid overtime only for May 2013. He produced a staff movement summary report showing daily clock-in and clock-out times. The respondent's human resource manager, testifying as RW1, confirmed the genuineness of the clocking records and admitted the claimants reported before 8 a.m. and left after 5 p.m., but insisted the extra hours were spent waiting for transport rather than working. The court framed a single issue: whether the claimants worked overtime that was unpaid. Relying on the CBA clause providing 8-hour normal working days and overtime at 1.5 times the normal rate (double on Sundays), the court found the claimants had proved unpaid overtime on a balance of probabilities, rejecting RW1's testimony as not credible since the records clearly showed daily hours worked, and the quantified sum was not challenged. The court awarded Kshs. 942,000 with interest at court rates from filing and costs of the suit. Judgment was delivered on 18th July 2019 by Mathews N. Nduma, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether unpaid overtime was proved

Holding

The claimants proved on a balance of probabilities that they worked overtime between 8th May 2013 and 12th July 2014, for which they were only paid for May 2013

Reasoning

The court relied on the staff movement summary report showing clock-in and clock-out times, confirmed genuine by the respondent's HR manager. The CBA in force provided for 8-hour normal working days with overtime at 1.5 times and double rate on Sundays. The claimants were paid overtime only for May 2013. RW1's assertion that the claimants merely waited for transport was found not credible, and the quantified sum of Kshs. 942,000 was not challenged.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where clocking records show hours worked beyond the 8 normal hours under a CBA, the employee has proved overtime on a balance of probabilities unless the employer credibly demonstrates the extra hours were not worked

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Unpaid overtime in the sum of Kshs. 942,000
  2. 2.Interest at court rates from date of filing suit till payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wycliffe Okoth & another v H. Young & Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 1009 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1009/eng@2019-07-18

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