Kenya Shipping Clearing & Warehouses Workers Union v Maya Freight Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 898 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2815 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled employees claiming unpaid leave or overtime must prove it with records, awarding only Kshs 22,350 for days actually worked.
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 Grievant had unpaid leave days earned up to 25th May 2018, particularly for the years 2002 to 2004
- 2.Whether outstanding overtime payments remained unpaid
- 3.What sums remain payable as terminal dues following the judgment of 31st October 2024
Key legal issues
#Unpaid leave days for 2002-2004
Dismissed; leave was taken as evidenced by the 2005 leave application showing 21 days carried forward, and any earlier claim is time barred
The court examined the leave records supplied and found the Grievant proceeded on leave in prior years, with 21 days carried forward into 2005 and utilized between 16th August and 5th September 2005. The court adopted the respondent's submission that older leave claims are time barred under section 89 of the Employment Act, and reiterated that a party claiming untaken leave must demonstrate by evidence that leave was applied for and denied or carried forward. The claimant adduced no such proof.
Outstanding overtime payments
Dismissed; monthly overtime payment was evident on the payslips and no time logs were produced to establish further unpaid overtime
The court reviewed all the payslips exhibited and found that overtime was in fact paid every month. Where a claimant asserts additional uncompensated overtime beyond the payslips, the evidential burden lies on the claimant to exhibit time logs showing the periods worked. No such evidence was presented, so the claim of a fixed monthly overtime of Kshs 2,800 accruing unpaid failed.
Salary for days worked up to 25th May 2018
Awarded at Kshs 22,350 as prayed, being the only sum exhibited as owing
The court found nothing exhibited showing anything owing to the claimant apart from the payment of salary for 25 days worked up to 25th May 2018, which it awarded at the figure prayed. Costs were withheld, the court making no order of costs on the application.
Legal principles established
#- A party claiming leave not taken must prove by evidence that the leave was applied for and denied or carried forward; absent such proof the claim fails
- A claim for unpaid overtime beyond what is shown on payslips must be supported by time logs showing periods worked
- Claims for leave from previous years are subject to the limitation period under section 89 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Award of Kshs 22,350/- for 25 days worked up to 25th May 2018
- 2.Dismissal of the claims for unpaid leave days and unpaid overtime
- 3.No order as to costs
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 in enforcement of its earlier judgment on terminal dues (specific provision not stated)
Relief refused
#Claim for unpaid leave days (Kshs 61,679.40 plus interest)
Leave prior to 2005 was taken; records show 21 days carried forward and utilized, and any earlier claim would be time barred under section 89 of the Employment Act; claimant failed to demonstrate leave applied for and denied or carried forward
Claim for unpaid overtime (Kshs 238,000 plus interest)
Payslips showed monthly overtime was paid; any further overtime claim required time logs which the claimant failed to produce
Costs of the application
Court declined to award costs
Costs
There will be no order of costs on this application.
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.
any party claiming for leave not taken must with evidence demonstrate that the said leave was applied for and denied or carried forward. In the absence of such demonstration, the claim for leave not taken over the years is not proved and is dismissed.
if there is any other payable overtime not covered in the payslip, this must be produced by the claimant by exhibiting the time logs to show periods worked
I find that there is nothing exhibited to show what is owing to the claimant save for the one payment of salary for 25 days worked up to 25th May 2018 which I award at kshs 22,350/- as prayed. There will be no order of costs on this application.
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant union's arithmetic is internally inconsistent, stating a total of Kshs 1149767.62 for components summing to Kshs 114,767.62, and overtime of Kshs 2,800 x 36 months stated as Kshs 238,000
Typographical errors in the judgment, including 'greviant proceeded for leave in years prior to 20015'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Shipping Clearing & Warehouses Workers Union v Maya Freight Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 898 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2815 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2815/eng@2025-10-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.