Owino v Radiant Power System Limited (Petition E094 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2651 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded an electrician only Kshs 9,339, rejecting discrimination and unfair termination claims because he couldn't prove his case properly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner was a site supervisor/foreman entitled to equal pay with other supervisors
The claim for salary discrimination failed; the Petitioner remained a technician and the other supervisors were not proper comparators.
The Petitioner's contracts, including the last ones, subjected him to the supervision of a manager/supervisor/foreman. There was no letter of promotion. The named supervisors did not place their contracts before the court, so a pay slip alone could not establish comparable roles. Comparing his salary to theirs was therefore misplaced.
Whether the Petitioner was underpaid against statutory minimum wage
The underpayment claim failed because it applied a single 2018 Wage Order across the entire period of service.
Different Wage Orders applied over the years of service. The Petitioner was required to cite the different applicable Wage Orders for each year in his pleading, documentation and evidence. He did not, and the court would not undertake the computation itself. No contemporaneous complaint of underpayment was made before filing the Petition.
Whether termination was on valid grounds and after fair procedure
Termination was on valid ground under Section 43 of the Employment Act and the process was fair.
The security guard captured the Petitioner loading conduit pipes into an unauthorized vehicle, corroborated by the security investigator's affidavit. The Petitioner was charged, heard, allowed to call a witness, and dismissed. His WhatsApp messages showed he was ready to move on. No constitutional violation arose.
Whether the deduction of Kshs 9,339 from terminal dues was lawful
The deduction was unlawful and the sum must be repaid.
The deduction was made for 12 days of alleged absence without leave. The WhatsApp communications showed the Petitioner was suspended by the Respondent's Director pending the disciplinary process, not absent without lawful cause, so the days should not have been deducted.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of salary discrimination on equal pay for work of equal value requires that the comparators be shown to hold the same position; a pay slip is not conclusive evidence of full terms and conditions of employment.
- An employee claiming underpayment of salary must plead and prove the applicable Wage Orders for each year of service; the court is not obliged to conduct that exercise.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the sum of Kshs 9,339 in full and final settlement of this Petition
- 2.No order on the costs
- 3.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations dispute brought as a Petition for violation of constitutional rights under Articles 27(1), (2) and (5), 35(1)(b) and 41(1) of the Constitution and Section 5(2)(3) of the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owino v Radiant Power System Limited (Petition E094 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2651 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition No E094 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2651/eng@2023-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.