Sasai & 8 others v Narok County Government & another (Cause E050 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 610 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Seven former Narok County officials won Kshs. 4.5 million each in unpaid contractual gratuity, but one claimant with different terms must prove her own case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to contractual gratuity
Seven of the eight Claimants, whose written contracts provided for gratuity at 31% of basic remuneration, were awarded Kshs. 4,511,430 each, computed on a monthly basic salary of Kshs. 242,550 over a five-year term
The Claimants' evidence through the 4th Claimant established appointment by gazette notice, executive orders, and five-year contracts with a gratuity clause. Pay slips confirmed the basic monthly salary. The arithmetic of 31% of Kshs. 14,553,000 yielded Kshs. 4,511,430 per Claimant, and the court found the claim well-founded on uncontroverted evidence.
Proof of the 2nd Claimant's distinct contract
Elizabeth Lolchoki's claim was not determined; she was granted leave to prove her claim afresh within 90 days, failing which it stands dismissed
The 2nd Claimant served as Economic Advisor and then County Secretary on terms different from her colleagues. Her contract granting gratuity was not traced, her documents were unclear, and the witness who testified could not persuasively speak to her distinct terms. The court required her own evidence before determining her claim.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant who is differently situated from other claimants must give their own evidence and produce clear documents to prove their distinct terms of service; the court cannot grant or dismiss such a claim without hearing that claimant
- Gratuity is computed at the contractual rate of 31% of the basic remuneration package for the term served
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimants, except Claimant No. 2 Elizabeth Lolchoki, are granted gratuity at Kshs. 4,511,430 each
- 2.Costs to the 8 Claimants
- 3.Interest allowed at court rates from the date of Judgment
- 4.The 2nd Claimant, Elizabeth Lolchoki, granted leave to formally prove her Claim afresh within 90 days, failing which her Claim stands dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under employment contract claims (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sasai & 8 others v Narok County Government & another (Cause E050 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 610 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Statement of Claim dated 9th October 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/610/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.