Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedAppeal E004 of 2021 (Webuye SPMC ELRC No. E004 of 2021)· [2024] KEELRC 1696 (KLR)

Board of Management - Milo Boys High School v Mabonga (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E016 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1696 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 June 2024
2,508 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that a cook's contractual salary could not fall below the legal minimum wage, awarding him Kshs. 355,878 in unpaid dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant school appealed against the judgment of P.Y. Kulecho, PM in Webuye SPMC ELRC No. E004 of 2021, which had awarded the respondent, a former cook, salary arrears of Kshs. 142,920, rest days pay of Kshs. 172,000, overtime of Kshs. 130,576 and leave pay of Kshs. 82,384, totalling Kshs. 527,880 plus costs and interest. Guided by Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., the court re-evaluated the evidence and framed two issues: whether the respondent was underpaid and whether the magistrate erred in the reliefs awarded. The court held that the wage orders constituted basic minimum terms under section 26 of the Employment Act which the employment contract could not override, and upheld the underpayment award. On overtime, the defence witness had admitted the cook worked long hours without overtime pay, so that award stood. The rest days award was set aside, the court finding it more probable than not that the cook got his rest days. On leave, the appellant, as custodian of employee records, failed to produce leave forms and did not discharge its burden under section 74 of the Employment Act, so the leave award was upheld. The court set aside the trial judgment and substituted judgment for the claimant of Kshs. 355,878 with interest at court rate and costs of the suit, with each party bearing its own costs of the appeal. Judgment delivered on 26 June 2024 by J.W. Keli, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was underpaid

Holding

The minimum wage order applied notwithstanding the contractual salary; the underpayment award of Kshs. 142,920 was upheld.

Reasoning

The claimant was employed as a cook at a contractual salary of Kshs. 7,000 (appointment letter Kshs. 6,000) contrary to the wage orders. The defence witness admitted in cross-examination that the wage order entitled a cook to Kshs. 12,000 minimum. Section 26 of the Employment Act makes wage-order terms basic minimum conditions that a contract cannot derogate from. The court upheld the magistrate's finding on underpayment.

p. 4
02

Whether the overtime award should stand

Holding

Overtime award of Kshs. 130,576 upheld; the appellant's own evidence admitted overtime was worked but not paid.

Reasoning

The claimant testified he worked from 3.00 am to 11.00 pm without overtime pay. In cross-examination the defence witness admitted the cook reported by 5.00 am, left at 5.30 pm and never received overtime. The court found no misapprehension of the evidence by the magistrate and declined to disturb the award.

p. 5
03

Whether the rest days award should stand

Holding

Rest days award of Kshs. 172,000 set aside; the claimant probably received his rest days.

Reasoning

The claimant testified he worked seven days a week, but the defence witness stated in cross-examination that the cooks have a day off. On a balance of probabilities the court found the claimant got his rest days, so the appeal succeeded only on this head and the award was set aside.

p. 5
04

Whether the leave pay award should stand

Holding

Leave pay upheld; the appellant failed its section 74 record-keeping burden by not producing leave forms.

Reasoning

The claimant denied taking leave; the defence said he took leave during school holidays but admitted it had no leave forms despite claiming he used to fill them. As custodian of employee records, the appellant was bound under section 74 of the Employment Act to keep leave records and, having failed to produce them, did not discharge its burden; the award of Kshs. 82,382 was upheld.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Regulated minimum wages are basic minimum terms and conditions of service that a contract of employment cannot override; the more favourable terms apply.
  • An employer bears the burden under section 74 of the Employment Act to keep and produce employee leave records; failure to produce leave forms means the claimant was not accorded annual leave.
  • A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment of the trial court set aside and substituted with judgment for the claimant of salary arrears Kshs. 142,920, overtime Kshs. 130,576 and leave pay in lieu Kshs. 82,382, totalling Kshs. 355,878
  2. 2.Total award payable with interest at Court rate until payment in full from the date of judgment plus costs of the suit
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 26
  • Employment Actsection 28
  • Employment Actsection 74
  • Regulation of Wages Order (2018)

Cases cited (1)

  • Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others
    (1948) EA 123
On appeal from
Senior Principal Magistrate's Court, Webuye
SPMC ELRC No. E004 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrate's court ELRC cause

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Board of Management - Milo Boys High School v Mabonga (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E016 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1696 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Appeal E004 of 2021 (Webuye SPMC ELRC No. E004 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1696/eng@2024-06-26

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