Wellington Maero Omwaya v Hygenic Butchery Trading Limited [2019] KEELRC 1956 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court awarded a dismissed cook over Ksh.51,000 because his employer kept poor records and skipped the fair-hearing process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the employee and applicable minimum wage
The claimant was protected under section 37 of the Employment Act, 2007 and entitled to the minimum wage under the wage orders; underpayment of Ksh.4,632.00 was due
The claimant was retained over one day and paid weekly for a period over 30 days on work that was not reasonably ending, so he was not a casual employee. The respondent's own witness confirmed weekly payment through the Sacco. As a protected employee he was entitled to the statutory minimum wage of Ksh.12,386.35 per month, and the agreed wage of Ksh.12,000.00, being below the minimum, was reduced by law to the statutory floor.
Fairness of the dismissal
The claimant was unfairly dismissed without notice, hearing or reasons; the defence of desertion was lame
Even if the claimant committed gross misconduct by stealing and issuing threats, the respondent did not follow section 41(2) by serving and pursuing the notice to show cause, made no effort to reach the claimant to respond, and did not report the alleged criminal acts to the police or labour officer. The muster rolls for January 2018 were overwritten without clarification. In the absence of proper records and procedure, the claimant's word prevailed and summary dismissal was unfair.
Burden of proof resting on employer's records
The respondent withheld complete records, so the court believed the claimant's account of his employment period and unpaid rest days
The respondent filed muster rolls only for the months it alleged the claimant worked, and the payment schedule to the Sacco was not attached. A register covering the entire period from 5th January, 2017 would have resolved the dispute on the period of employment. The January 2018 record was overwritten without explanation. Because the respondent held back these details, the claimant's testimony that he worked 7 days a week without rest or holiday compensation was accepted.
Overtime and public holiday claims
Overtime claim lost on the shift-work evidence; public holiday claim declined as unparticularised
The claimant himself testified there were two cooks working in shifts, and he could not coherently explain why he reported at 5am when the respondent opened at 6am. The court accepted the respondent's work schedule showing 6am to 4pm. The claimed 9 public holidays were not set out and, measured against the awarded rest days and leave pay, were declined. Leave pay of Ksh.8,670.40 was however due under sections 28 and 37 of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- Work records are the fodder for every employer; without work records the court must believe the word of the employee
- An employee retained beyond one day and paid weekly for over 30 days on work not reasonably ending ceases to be a casual employee and is protected under section 37 of the Employment Act
- Minimum wage under wage orders cannot be agreed downwards between the parties
- Before summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the employer must issue notice and hear the employee's representations under section 41(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for Notice pay Ksh.12,386.35
- 2.Pay for 7 days in January, 2018 Ksh.4,153.00
- 3.Leave pay Ksh.8,670.40
- 4.Underpayments Ksh.4,632.00
- 5.Rest days Ksh.21,469.00
- 6.The awards shall be subject to provisions of section 49(2) of the Employment Act, 2007
- 7.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination and employment benefits claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wellington Maero Omwaya v Hygenic Butchery Trading Limited [2019] KEELRC 1956 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 144 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1956/eng@2019-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.