Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 11th July 2023· [2025] KEELRC 2823 (KLR)

Okudho v SS Mehta & Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2823 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 October 2025
2,384 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 Kenyan court awarded a safety officer unpaid storekeeper wages and notice pay, but most claims failed due to time limits and weak evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as an Environmental Health and Safety Officer from 13th August 2012, sued after his employment was terminated effective 9th June 2023. He pleaded unfair termination by way of redundancy contrary to section 40 of the Employment Act, and claimed unpaid storekeeper wages, notice pay, severance, 12 months' compensation, leave dues, costs and interest, totalling Kshs. 2,688,176/-. The Respondent admitted the employment but denied that the Claimant handled NEMA matters, asserted transfers were contractual, and explained the redundancy as arising from KeRRA's non-payment, having offered a cheque for final dues which the Claimant declined. The court found the pleadings did not match the evidence: the termination letter stated the contract ended on completion of the project and was 'mutually agreed', so section 40 on redundancy did not apply and the termination was regular, resolving the unfair termination claim in the Respondent's favour. On remuneration, the court applied limitation rules - one year for continuing wrongs such as unpaid salary - rejecting the decade-long wage claim. It found the Claimant combined the roles of safety officer and storekeeper in the latter part of his service and, applying the Regulation of Wages (General) Order for 'other areas' (Gilgil), awarded unpaid wages of Kshs. 199,097.28 and notice pay of Kshs. 51,591.44. Claims for gratuity, 7 days' company-policy leave and 17.5 statutory leave days failed for want of proof. The suit was partially allowed with costs limited to the awarded sums and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the termination

Holding

The termination was by mutual agreement, not redundancy; section 40 of the Employment Act was inapplicable

Reasoning

The termination letter stated the contract was terminated effective 9th June 2023 on account of completion of the project, described the termination as 'mutually agreed', and annexed final dues computation. The court held this was not a redundancy despite the Claimant's attempt to read section 40 requirements into the letter, and found the termination regular.

p. 4
02

Additional storekeeper duties and pay

Holding

Claimant proved he combined two roles in the latter part of service and was entitled to storekeeper wages under the applicable Regulation of Wages

Reasoning

Although the pleadings claimed 10 years of unpaid wages, the court applied limitation rules and awarded only the latter period. It found the Claimant combined the roles of safety officer and storekeeper, and, using the applicable Regulation of Wages (General) Order for 'other areas' (Gilgil), computed unpaid wages of Kshs. 16,591.44 monthly, totaling Kshs. 199,097.28 for a year.

p. 5
03

Notice pay

Holding

Entitled to one month's wage in lieu of notice, Kshs. 51,591.44

Reasoning

The termination took effect immediately without notice. The court held the Claimant entitled to recompense equivalent to a monthly wage as payment in lieu of notice, computed at Kshs. 51,591.44.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Continuing wrongs such as non-payment of salary are subject to a one-year limitation period for employment claims
  • Termination effective immediately without notice entitles an employee to payment in lieu of notice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Unpaid wages of Kshs. 199,097.28
  2. 2.Notice pay of Kshs. 51,591.44
  3. 3.Costs of the suit limited to the sums awarded in (i) and (ii)
  4. 4.Interest at court rates on the awarded sums from the date of judgment till payment in full
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act (employment dispute)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Okudho v SS Mehta & Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 11th July 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2823/eng@2025-10-22

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