Njiru v East African Cable Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 272 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2732 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a security supervisor Ksh. 737,490 in overtime, ruling employers cannot escape overtime pay through contract clauses or supervisors' titles.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to overtime pay despite contractual variation of work hours
The Claimant was entitled to overtime for hours worked beyond the statutory maximum of ten hours per day for night-shift employees, notwithstanding the contractual reservation of the right to require longer hours
The contract fixed hours at 8.00 AM to 5.00 PM and reserved the right to require longer hours, but said nothing about unpaid extra work. Section 27(1) of the Employment Act and Regulation 5 of the Regulations of Wages (General) Order, 1982 cap night-shift work at ten hours per day; hours beyond that are overtime payable at one and a half times the hourly rate. The Respondent's admission that the Claimant worked 6.00 PM to 6.00 AM daily established the extra two hours per day.
Whether supervisory status disqualifies an employee from overtime
No, absent evidence that supervisors fall within management or a rule/CBA excluding them from overtime
The Respondent asserted the Claimant, as a security supervisor, was part of management and thus barred from overtime, but tendered no evidence that supervisory-level employees fall in management, nor any agreement, rule or Collective Bargaining Agreement clause disentitling the Claimant to overtime pay.
Whether the discharge voucher released the Respondent from the overtime claim
It did not, because the Claimant noted his reservation on the face of the voucher
Although the Respondent produced a payment voucher releasing it from further claims, the Claimant testified he noted his outstanding overtime entitlement on it, and the Respondent's witness confirmed this in cross-examination. The court therefore found no release of the overtime claim.
Distinguishability of Ngunda v Ready Consultancy Limited
Distinguished because the employer there did not admit overtime and there was no evidence of how extra hours accrued
Unlike the present case, the employer in Ngunda did not admit that the employee worked overtime, and in this case there was adequate evidence (the Claimant's testimony plus the defense witness's admission) demonstrating when the extra hours were incurred.
Legal principles established
#- A contractual right to require longer hours does not disentitle an employee to remuneration for extra hours worked
- Work outside statutory maximum hours is overtime payable at one and a half times hourly pay
- An admission in testimony removes the need for further proof of the admitted fact
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant in the sum of Ksh. 737,490.00
- 2.Interest on the aforesaid sum at court rates from the date of the decision
- 3.Costs of the case awarded to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njiru v East African Cable Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 272 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2732 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2732/eng@2023-11-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.