Opiyo v Uzuri Foods Limited (Bread Division) (Cause 1591 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2156 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employer cannot deduct an employee's terminal dues without proving the employee's own fault, and awarded the sales manager Kshs 479,928.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the deductions from the Claimant's terminal dues were fair and lawful
The deductions were unlawful; they were not within the permissible deductions under Part IV and section 19 of the Employment Act and exceeded the statutory ceiling.
Section 19 of the Employment Act limits deductions to instances such as damage or loss occasioned by the employee's wilful default, or shortages arising from the negligence or dishonesty of an employee entrusted with money. The Respondent's evidence did not establish the Claimant's culpability; instead it relied on a responsibility clause. The cumulative deductions also exceeded the two-thirds ceiling under section 19(3).
Whether the contractual responsibility clause made the Claimant liable for losses by other employees
No; the clause did not impose personal liability for losses occasioned by other employees where the Claimant was not involved, and the disputed term was not proved to have been agreed.
The contract did not bear the name of the person accepting the offer, the Claimant alleged doctoring of page 1, and his assertion that he was never given a copy of the contract was unchallenged. Under sections 9 and 10(7) of the Employment Act the burden lay on the Respondent, which it failed to discharge. The duties read together speak to loss-prevention mechanisms, not personal liability to compensate.
Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim of Kshs 1,498,310.70 was merited
The counterclaim failed in all three heads: damages for unauthorized withdrawal of the criminal case (special damages not proved), unpaid insurance claims (notification was not the Claimant's contractual duty), and the outstanding ledger balance (transactions not personally attributable to the Claimant).
The special damages of Kshs 209,493 were pleaded but no evidence showed how the figure was computed. On insurance, the Claimant's evidence that notifying the insurer was the General Manager's responsibility was unrebutted. The ledger entries related to transactions that could not be personally attributed to the Claimant.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may only deduct from an employee's wages in the circumstances authorised by section 19 of the Employment Act; deductions for losses must be grounded in the employee's wilful default, negligence or dishonesty as contemplated by section 19(1)(b) and (d).
- Where the employer fails to issue a written contract to the employee and there is a dispute on a term of the contract, the employer bears the onus under section 10(7) of the Employment Act to prove the term was agreed.
- A responsibility clause in a letter of appointment does not impose personal liability on a supervising employee to compensate the employer for losses occasioned by other employees where the supervisor was not involved directly or indirectly.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and specifically proved.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the deductions made to the Claimant's salary were unfair, wrongful, and unmerited in the circumstances of this matter.
- 2.The Claimant be paid salary for April 2016 Kshs 140,870/-
- 3.The Claimant be paid house allowance Kshs 21,131/-
- 4.The Claimant be paid leave encashment Kshs 37,927/-
- 5.The Claimant be paid security deposit Kshs 160,000/-
- 6.The Claimant be paid salary deductions Kshs 120,000/-
- 7.Total award Kshs 479,928/-
- 8.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of the Judgment until payment in full
- 9.Costs of the suit be borne by the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Opiyo v Uzuri Foods Limited (Bread Division) (Cause 1591 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Statement of Claim dated 5th December 2018 (Employment and Labour Relations Court cause; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2156/eng@2024-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.