Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No 2575 of 2016· [2020] KEELRC 210 (KLR)

Raphael Njoroge Mwaura & 12 others v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 210 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 November 2020
2,093 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hellen Wasilwa, Judge) on the Claimants/Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 8th June 2020, seeking adoption of their computation in Schedule A as the judgment sum following the Court's judgment of 27th February 2020, which found their voluntary early retirement (VER) was a disguised redundancy and that amounts payable would be computed at a later stage and adopted as a judgment of the Court. The Applicants computed their dues at Kshs. 312,909,438.50 before tax, based on consolidated salaries under Part VI, Section 4 of the Respondent's Human Resource Manual. The Respondent opposed, contending the figures were wrongly calculated: no credit was given for the 8 months' salary advance under the VER package, outstanding car loans of six Applicants were not deducted, payslips were not produced, and the award was subject to tax. It relied on Kioko Joseph v Bamburi Cement Ltd and Paul Ngotwa v Telkom Kenya Limited on the taxability of terminal dues awards. The Court held the amounts payable would be for 45 days for each year worked (the deficit from the 60 days expected, given prior payment at 15 days per year), less the 8 months' advanced basic pay, and subject to tax. It declined to deduct outstanding car loan liabilities, finding these a new matter not pleaded by counter-claim. Finding the Applicants' figures included amounts not payable, the Court declined to adopt Schedule A outright and instead directed the Applicants to recompute as illustrated, exchange the computation with the Respondent for reply or concurrence, and submit the agreed or disputed figures for the Court's further direction or adoption. Costs were awarded in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Computation basis of severance pay

Holding

Severance pay is payable at the deficit of 45 days' salary for each year worked, being the shortfall from the 60 days expected under the Human Resource Manual Part VI, given payment already made at 15 days per year

Reasoning

The judgment of 27th February 2020 found the applicants were paid 15 days' gross salary per year of service against the 60 days expected, leaving a deficit of 45 days. The Court directed computation of 45 days per year of service, less the 8 months' advanced basic pay received under the VER package, subject to tax.

p. 4
02

Taxation of the award

Holding

The award is taxable notwithstanding the company's agreement to bear tax under the VER letters; the amounts payable are subject to tax

Reasoning

The company had agreed to bear all tax costs on the understanding that the exit was a voluntary early retirement. Having found the VER was in fact a disguised redundancy, the Court held the amount payable is taxable as per the law, though the parties disputed who bears the tax element.

p. 4
03

Credit for VER payments and unpleaded liabilities

Holding

The 8 months' salary advance paid under the VER must be deducted; outstanding car loan liabilities may not be deducted as they were not pleaded

Reasoning

The Court found the applicants received a package including an 8 months' back salary advance based on VER, a position the Court found untenable, and directed that this be deducted. However, the respondent's claim for outstanding car loan liabilities of six applicants was a new matter never raised by counter-claim and could not be entertained at the computation stage.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a VER is found to be a disguised redundancy, the severance award is taxable and the employer bears the tax as agreed in the VER letters
  • Unpleaded set-off claims cannot be introduced at the computation stage

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicants to compute the amounts payable as illustrated by the Court (45 days' pay for each year worked, less 8 months' advanced basic pay, and less tax) and exchange the computation with the Respondents for reply or concurrence
  2. 2.The figures as agreed or disagreed upon to be submitted for the Court's further direction/adoption
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Respondent's Human Resource ManualPart VI, Section 4

Cases cited (2)

  • Kioko Joseph (Suing As The Legal Representative Of The Estate Of Joseph Kilinda) V Bamburi Cement Ltd
    [2017] eKLR
  • Paul Ngotwa V Telkom Kenya Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction to adopt computation of amounts due under its judgment of 27th February 2020 as a judgment of the Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Raphael Njoroge Mwaura & 12 others v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 2575 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/210/eng@2020-11-11

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