Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedApplication dated 21.11.2019 (arising from judgment of 22.3.2019)· [2020] KEELRC 443 (KLR)

Wilson Ngaruiya Njoroge & another v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2020] KEELRC 443 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2020
2,196 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that unfair termination compensation is calculated on gross salary—regular fixed allowances included—while variable allowances are excluded, reducing the awards.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Respondent's notice of motion dated 21.11.2019 seeking review of the Court's judgment of 22.3.2019, which had awarded the 1st and 2nd Claimants KShs. 2,414,745 and KShs. 1,770,899 respectively on the basis of gross salaries of KShs. 155,790 and KShs. 114,274. Both parties conceded an error apparent on the face of the record as to the salary figures used, so the only issues were what constitutes gross salary for computing notice pay, compensation for unfair termination and withheld salary, and the resulting awards. Relying on section 49 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal decisions in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui and Richard Erskine Leakey v Samson Kipkoech Chemai, the court held that gross salary comprises basic salary plus regular, fixed monthly allowances, excluding temporary or performance-dependent allowances; the 1st claimant's acting allowance of KShs. 880 was excluded, giving gross salaries of KShs. 79,240 and KShs. 39,320. For the suspension period, half pay excludes duty-facilitating allowances, but since house allowance was fully paid, only half basic salary plus electricity and water was withheld, capped at the pleaded amounts of KShs. 77,895 and KShs. 45,350. The court allowed the review and varied the awards to KShs. 1,108,015 for the 1st Claimant and KShs. 556,510 for the 2nd, subject to statutory deductions, plus costs of the suit and interest from the date of the original judgment, with each party bearing its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

What constitutes gross salary for computing notice pay, compensation for unfair termination and withheld salary

Holding

Gross salary comprises basic salary plus regular, fixed allowances payable every month; temporary or performance-dependent allowances such as acting allowance are excluded. The 1st claimant's gross salary was KShs. 79,240 and the 2nd claimant's KShs. 39,320.

Reasoning

Section 49(1)(a) and (c) of the Employment Act base awards on the gross monthly wage or salary. Undisputed pay slips for May–July 2009 showed total monthly earnings. The Court of Appeal in Postal Corporation v Tanui and Leakey v Chemai holds that allowances dependent on actual performance are excluded. All items except the acting allowance (KShs. 880) were regular and fixed, hence includable.

02

Computation of half pay during suspension (withheld salary)

Holding

Half pay during suspension excludes duty-facilitating allowances (travelling, telephone, management support, acting, entertainment); only fixed items (basic salary, house allowance, electricity & water) count. House allowance was in fact paid, so only half basic salary plus electricity & water was withheld; award is capped at the pleaded amount.

Reasoning

Since the claimants performed no duties during suspension, facilitation allowances fall away. The respondent's pay slips showed full house allowance was paid. The pleaded figures of KShs. 77,895 and KShs. 45,350 were admitted and adopted, subject to the rule that the court awards only what is pleaded.

p. 3
03

Whether the judgment of 22.3.2019 contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

It was common ground that an error existed as to the salary used in assessing damages; review was justified and the award varied downwards from the figures of KShs. 2,414,745 and KShs. 1,770,899 originally awarded.

Reasoning

Both parties conceded the error apparent on the face of the record regarding the salary figure used by the court in the original judgment. The only live issues were the correct gross salary and the resulting awards, which the court resolved by reference to the undisputed pay slips and applicable case law.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Gross salary is the amount calculated by adding up one's basic salary and allowances before deduction of taxes and other deductions; each case must be examined to identify the nature of the allowances and whether they form part of gross salary.
  • Allowances dependent on actual performance of the contract of employment are excluded when calculating damages for unfair or wrongful termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for review allowed and the award of damages in the judgment of 22.3.2019 varied: 1st Claimant – Notice pay KShs. 79,240.00, Withheld salary KShs. 77,895.00, 12 Months' Compensation KShs. 950,880.00, Total KShs. 1,108,015.00
  2. 2.2nd Claimant – Notice pay KShs. 39,320.00, Withheld salary KShs. 45,350.00, 12 Months' Compensation KShs. 471,840.00, Total KShs. 556,510.00
  3. 3.Awards subject to statutory deductions but in addition to costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of the said judgment
  4. 4.Each party to bear own costs of the instant Application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 49(1)(a), (b), (c)
  • Employment Actsection 50
  • ELRC Procedure RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Postal Corporation of Kenya vs. Andrew K. Tanui
    [2019] eKLR
  • Richard Erskine Leakey & 2 Others vs. Samson Kipkoech Chemai
    [2019] eKLR
  • Michael Njoroge Ng'ang'a vs. Home Afrika Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Pravin Bowry v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act and the Court's power of review over its own judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wilson Ngaruiya Njoroge & another v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2020] KEELRC 443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Application dated 21.11.2019 (arising from judgment of 22.3.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/443/eng@2020-09-24

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