Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Appeal from Nairobi CMEL Cause No. 1437 of 2019· [2025] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)

Iminti v University of Nairobi (Appeal E200 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2025
SRStella Rutto
2,505 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 retired University of Nairobi employee lost his appeal for extra gratuity because the court refused to apply new rates to service before they took effect.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, a former employee of the University of Nairobi who retired on 27th January 2019, appealed against the dismissal by the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi of his claim for unpaid gratuity of Kshs 3,296,110.78. He contended that his gratuity should be computed at 31% of his basic salary for each completed year of service under the 2013-2017 CBA (Clause 40), which was in force at his retirement. The Respondent maintained that the CBA's implementation date was 1st July 2015, that gratuity could not be computed retrospectively, and that the Appellant had been paid all his dues. The Appellant relied on several prior University of Nairobi gratuity decisions; the Respondent relied on authorities against retrospective application of contracts. The Court, as the first appellate court, framed two issues: the effective date for the new gratuity rates and entitlement to the reliefs sought. It found that following a trade dispute, an Agreement dated 16th October 2018 between the University and KUDHEIHA provided that the 31% rate applies only to service after 1st July 2015, with 28 days' basic salary per completed year applying for the pre-2015 period, and expressly excluded retrospective application. The court held that Agreement to be part and parcel of the CBA and distinguishable from the precedents cited by the Appellant, which had not interpreted it. Applying the new rate retrospectively would amount to rewriting the parties' contract. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with each party bearing their own costs. Delivered at Nairobi on 30th May 2025 by Stella Rutto, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effective date for computation of gratuity at 31% under the 2013-2017 CBA

Holding

The 31% rate applies only from 1st July 2015; prior service attracts 28 days' basic salary per completed year per the 16th October 2018 Agreement, which is part and parcel of the CBA

Reasoning

Clause 43 fixed the CBA's implementation date as 1st July 2015, and Clause 40(ii) precluded retrospective application. The 16th October 2018 Agreement resolving the trade dispute over retired employees expressly provided 28 days' pay for the pre-2015 period and barred retrospective application of the 31% rate. The court read that Agreement in conjunction with Clause 40 and declined to disturb the trial Magistrate's finding.

p. 5
02

Whether the precedents relied on by the Appellant assist him

Holding

They do not; the courts in those cases did not interpret the 16th October 2018 Agreement

Reasoning

The Appellant invoked several University of Nairobi gratuity decisions, but the court distinguished them on the basis that none construed the 16th October 2018 Agreement or its implication on Clause 40 of the CBA, so no finding in those cases contradicted the trial court's approach.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and arrive at its own independent determination while bearing in mind it did not hear the witnesses firsthand
  • Retrospective application of gratuity rates under a CBA contrary to its implementation date amounts to rewriting the parties' contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 59
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (12)

  • Benta Achieng Odinyo v University of Nairobi
    [2021] eKLR
  • Bamburi Cement Limited v William Kilonzi
    [2016] eKLR
  • H. Young & Company [EA] Limited v Javan Were Mbango
    [2016] eKLR
  • Paul Billy Nyagillo v East Africa Portland Cement Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Ali Buule Isaak v University of Nairobi
    [2021] eKLR
  • Reuben Ondigu Orodo v University of Nairobi
    [2023] KEELRC C 2454 [KLR]
  • University of Nairobi v Livingstone Mayaka
    [2024] KEELRC C 2715 [KLR]
  • Municipality of Mombasa v Nyali Limited
    [1963] E.A 371
  • Samuel Kamu Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Kenya Chemical and Allied Workers Union v Milly Glass Works Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union
    [2018] eKLR
  • Selle & another vs Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd. & others
    [1968] EA 123
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi (CMEL Cause No. 1437 of 2019)
CMEL Cause No. 1437 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's CMEL cause (re-evaluation of evidence as first appellate court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Iminti v University of Nairobi (Appeal E200 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Appeal from Nairobi CMEL Cause No. 1437 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1603/eng@2025-05-30

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