Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No 1142 of 2017· [2023] KEELRC 89 (KLR)

Chagaba v Artcaffe Coffee & Bakery Limited (Cause 1142 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 89 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 January 2023
1,808 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers can lawfully deduct tax from compensation awards before paying employees, provided they remit it to KRA and issue a P9 certificate.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant, Art cafie Cofiee & Bakery Ltd, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi by Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2022 under Rule 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a declaration that the decree dated 23rd December 2021, arising from a consent judgment of 26th October 2021, had been fully satisfied. The applicant contended it had paid the decretal sum of Kshs 301,617.50 after lawful statutory deductions under section 49(2) of the Employment Act: Kshs 160,910 to the claimant, Kshs 75,178.86 to her advocate, tax of Kshs 65,594.14 and withholding tax of Kshs 3,449 remitted to KRA. The claimant opposed, asserting the award was all-inclusive and had not been paid in full, justifying execution for an alleged balance of Kshs 68,044.14. The court framed the principal issue as whether an employer may withhold tax on compensation awarded under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act and on advocates' costs. Relying on section 49(2), section 37 of the Income Tax Act and the authorities of Peris Njeri Kinyanjui v Kobo Safaris, Kioko Joseph v Bamburi Cement and Julius Wahome v Muki Sacco, the court held that terminal dues within the taxable bracket are subject to statutory deductions, which the employer must deduct, remit and certify via a P9 form. It also upheld the withholding tax on the advocates' costs, noting the advocate would obtain a credit from KRA. Finding the decree fully satisfied, the court allowed prayer (e), directed issuance of the P9 and withholding tax certificates, and ordered each party to bear her/its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employer may deduct tax from compensation awarded under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act

Holding

Yes. Terminal dues under section 49(1)(c) are subject to statutory deductions so long as they fall above the tax bracket.

Reasoning

Section 49(2) of the Employment Act expressly provides that payments made under the section are subject to statutory deductions. The court followed Peris Njeri Kinyanjui v Kobo Safaris, Kioko Joseph v Bamburi Cement and Julius Wahome v Muki Sacco, which held that employers are obliged under section 37 of the Income Tax Act to deduct tax from lump-sum payments and remit it to KRA. The claimant's dues were within the taxable bracket, so the deductions were lawful.

p. 3
02

Whether withholding tax could properly be deducted on the advocate's costs

Holding

Yes; the withholding tax of Kshs 3,449.00 on the advocates' costs was lawfully remitted to KRA, and the claimant's advocate would get a credit from KRA when paying annual income tax.

Reasoning

The applicant produced a Withholding Certificate dated 17/02/2022 showing the tax was effected on the advocate's costs of Kshs 80,000 on behalf of M/S Mwangi Wahome & Company Advocates, not on the claimant's behalf. The court was satisfied the certificate had been tendered to the appropriate authority and the advocate would claim a credit.

p. 4
03

Whether the decree has been fully satisfied

Holding

Yes. Payments of Kshs 160,910 to the claimant, Kshs 75,172.86 to the claimant's advocate, Kshs 65,594.14 tax remitted to KRA and Kshs 3,449 withholding tax total the decretal sum of Kshs 301,617.50.

Reasoning

Having found the deductions lawful, the court computed the amounts paid and remitted and concluded the decretal amount of Kshs 301,617.50 had been satisfied, entitling the applicant to the declaration that execution was unwarranted.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer is entitled to effect statutory deductions including tax on terminal dues awarded under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act before payment, provided the dues fall within the taxable bracket.
  • Where an award is within the taxable bracket, the employer must deduct, retain and remit statutory dues to KRA and issue the employee the necessary P9 form.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Decree dated 23rd December 2021 arising from the Consent Judgment of the parties dated 26th October 2021 has been fully satisfied by the Respondent/Applicant
  2. 2.The Applicant to supply the claimant with the requisite P9 tax certificate and the withholding tax certificate to the claimant's advocate
  3. 3.Each party to bear her/its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations ActRule 12(3)
  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 22; Order 21 Rule 1
  • Employment Act 2007sections 17, 19, 37, 49(1)(c), 49(2)
  • Income Tax Actsections 13(1), 37, 37(2)
  • Kenya Revenue Authority Act
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d), 48

Cases cited (5)

  • DPL Festive Limited versus Elijah Ochieng Rakuru
    (2022) eKLR
  • Peris Njeri Kinyanjui versus Kobo Safaris Limited
    (2017) eKLR (Cause No 176/2009)
  • Julius Wahome Ndirangu & Another versus Muki Sacco Society Limited; Co-operative Bank Kenya (Garnishee)
    2010 eKLR; Case No 48 as consolidated with 49 of 2017
  • Kioko Joseph [suing as the representative of the estate of Joseph Kilinda] -v- Bamburi Cement Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Andrew Mukite Saisi v Tracker Group of Companies
    Cause No. 748 of 2011 (Nairobi)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act 2014; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

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, "Chagaba v Artcaffe Coffee & Bakery Limited (Cause 1142 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 89 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 1142 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/89/eng@2023-01-19

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