Wangondu v Atticon Ltd (Cause E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee over Kshs.5.5 million in unpaid salary and service pay, but rejected his leave claim because he couldn't prove how it was calculated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to unpaid salary and allowances under the 2017-2019 and 2019-2021 contracts
Awarded as pleaded: Kshs.428,000 for one month under the first contract and Kshs.4,299,196.44 for 14 months under the second contract
The claim proceeded by formal proof after the respondent failed to enter appearance or file defence. The claimant's uncontroverted testimony established that salaries were unpaid from August 2020 to 16th October 2021 and for one month under the first contract. The court computed the monthly pay as the consolidated Kshs.423,000 plus Kshs.5,000 airtime, totalling Kshs.428,000, and awarded the sum pleaded for the second contract rather than its own higher computation.
Claim for accrued leave days (62 days)
Declined
Although leave entitlement arose under clause 14 of the contract, the claimant did not prove the basis on which the 62 days were computed. In the absence of evidence supporting the quantum, the court declined to award the claim despite the undefended nature of the suit.
Claim for service pay for four years
Awarded at Kshs.846,000 (15 days' salary per year of service)
Service pay under the Employment Act is payable where the employer has not contributed to a social security scheme on the employee's behalf. The claimant testified that NSSF and NHIF contributions were not deducted and remitted, and the respondent, being absent, did not rebut this. The court applied the formula Kshs.423,000 x 15/30 x 4 years.
Legal principles established
#- Uncontroverted evidence led in formal proof stands unrebutted and is sufficient to sustain an award
- Service pay is payable where the employer made no social security (NSSF) contributions in favour of the employee, computed at 15 days' salary per year of service
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the claimant: unpaid salary under first contract Kshs.428,000.00
- 2.Unpaid salary under second contract Kshs.4,299,196.44
- 3.Service pay Kshs.846,000.00 (total Kshs.5,573,196.44)
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 5.Interest at court rates from the date of filing suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance Statement of Claim); judgment delivered via Teams waiving Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Unpaid leave days for 2017 to 2021 (62 days valued at Kshs.874,200)
The claimant did not demonstrate how the 62 days of accrued leave were computed
Costs
The claimant will also have costs and interest at court rates from the date of filing suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The pleadings and evidence by the claimant have not been contested and rebutted. Therefore, I award the claim for unpaid salary and allowances from October 2019 and that of August 2020 to October 2021 equaling to 15 months.
he did not show how the 62 days were arrived at and consequently, I decline to award the said claim.
In conclusion, I enter judgment for the claimant as follows: a. Unpaid salary under first contract…………………………….Kshs.428,000.00 b. Unpaid salary under second contract………………………Kshs.4,299,196.44 c. Service pay……………………………………………………………..Kshs.846,000.00 Kshs.5,573,196.44
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's computation of unpaid salary for the second contract (Kshs.5,992,000.44 for 14 months) exceeds the claimant's pleaded figure, and the court appears to conflate the 14-month pleaded period with a 15-month award in the analysis paragraph
The claimant described the first contract as two years yet his testimony and pleading state the contract dated 16th October 2017 lapsed and a second contract ran from 17th October 2019, while paragraph 1 describes the first contract as expiring 16th October 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wangondu v Atticon Ltd (Cause E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim dated 4th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1839/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.