Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedEmployment Cause filed 17th April, 2013 (Industrial Cause)· [2019] KEELRC 2021 (KLR)

Eliud Indayi Sachida & 2 others v Outreach Community Centre [2019] KEELRC 2021 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (Industrial Court)
26 February 2019
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,030 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded two security guards nearly Kshs. 100,000 each after their employer failed to explain why their jobs ended early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Three former security officers employed by the Respondent as watchmen claimed damages for wrongful and unfair termination of services in 2011 and terminal dues comprising retirement package, overtime, public holidays, leave allowance and house allowance, together with an order compelling the Respondent to remit unforwarded statutory deductions (PAYE, NSSF and NHIF) and issuance of certificates of service. The Respondent admitted the employment but denied dismissing the claimants, asserting they had sued through the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union in Industrial Cause No. 17 of 2011, refused to return to work after receiving payments, and sought dismissal of the suit with costs. The matter proceeded ex-parte on 22nd January, 2019 as the Respondent failed to attend despite service. The 1st and 2nd Claimants testified; the 3rd Claimant died during the suit with no substitution application made. The court found the employment undisputed, the contracts were fixed-term (the 2nd Claimant's running to 28/2/2012), yet services ended in 2011 before the due date. With no evidence from the Respondent and no explanation of the terminations, the court found the termination unfair and unjustified for want of valid reasons and procedures. It awarded each of the 1st and 2nd Claimants Kshs. 98,670 (one month's notice pay of Kshs. 7,590, three years' leave allowance of Kshs. 22,770, and house allowance of Kshs. 68,310) plus costs and interest, and ordered certificates of service. Overtime and public holiday claims were disallowed for want of proof of computation, and the 3rd Claimant's claim was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination of the 1st and 2nd Claimants' services was unfair and unjustified

Holding

Termination was unfair and unjustified for want of valid reasons and procedure; the Respondent adduced no evidence to rebut the Claimants' case

Reasoning

The employment was undisputed. The appointment letters showed fixed-term contracts, with the 2nd Claimant's contract due to end on 28/2/2012, yet services ended in 2011 before the due date. The circumstances of termination were unclear, the Respondent failed to attend or file evidence despite service, and the matter proceeded ex-parte. With no explanation offered, the court found the terminations unfair.

p. 3
02

Quantum of terminal dues payable

Holding

One month's notice pay, three years' leave allowance and house allowance at 15% awarded; overtime and public holiday claims disallowed for want of proof

Reasoning

The court assessed notice pay at the pleaded monthly salary of Kshs. 7,590 per claimant, leave at three years' salary, and house allowance at 15% of salary for 60 months, totalling Kshs. 98,670 per claimant. The overtime and public holiday claims failed because the claimants could not explain the figures claimed.

p. 3
03

Status of the 3rd Claimant's claim

Holding

Dismissed for want of prosecution as the claimant died without substitution

Reasoning

The 3rd Claimant, Elkanah Nyamayi Oduor, died during the pendency of the suit and no application was made to substitute his estate or personal representative, so his claim could not be entertained and was dismissed for want of prosecution.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer bears the burden of explaining the circumstances of an employee's termination; absent a valid reason and fair procedure, the termination is unfair and unjustified
  • A party who alleges specific entitlements such as overtime and public holiday pay must adduce evidence explaining the computation; unexplained claims fail
  • House allowance may be awarded at 15% of monthly salary where not paid, computed over the period of service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 7,590 awarded to each of the 1st and 2nd Claimants
  2. 2.Leave allowance of Kshs. 22,770 awarded to each of the 1st and 2nd Claimants (3 years at Kshs. 7,590)
  3. 3.House allowance of Kshs. 68,310 awarded to each of the 1st and 2nd Claimants (15% of salary for 60 months)
  4. 4.Total award of Kshs. 98,670 to each of the 1st and 2nd Claimants plus costs and interest
  5. 5.The 1st and 2nd Claimants to be issued with a Certificate of Service
  6. 6.The claim of the 3rd Claimant dismissed for want of prosecution
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court (dispute referred through the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eliud Indayi Sachida & 2 others v Outreach Community Centre [2019] KEELRC 2021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Employment Cause filed 17th April, 2013 (Industrial Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2021/eng@2019-02-26

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