Kariuki & 3 others v Goodhope Caterers Limited (Cause E046 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2852 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Four hotel workers won statutory severance pay for redundancy after their employer shut down, though most other claims failed for lack of proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to severance pay on redundancy
Claim succeeded; each Claimant entitled to severance pay at 15 days' pay per completed year of service, as none was paid
Section 40(1)(g) of the Employment Act mandatorily requires severance pay of not less than fifteen days' pay for each completed year of service upon redundancy. It was not disputed that the terminations arose from redundancy, and there was no evidence that the Respondent paid severance pay. The Court therefore awarded each Claimant severance computed on their respective years of service.
Salary underpayment and house allowance
Only the 3rd Claimant's underpayment claim succeeded, to the extent of the proven shortfall; house allowance claims failed because salaries were consolidated
Consolidated salaries are presumed to cover allowances, but a claim survives where the consolidated salary falls below the statutory minimum wage. The Wages Order prescribed a minimum for waiters, and the 3rd Claimant's consolidated pay of Kshs. 15,500 fell below the computed minimum of Kshs. 16,857.68. For the other Claimants, no comparable minimum wage category existed, so the claims could not be established.
Half salary for March to October 2021
Claim declined; Claimants worked alternate-day shifts and were paid for days actually worked during the COVID-19 period
The muster roll and CW1's own admission showed the Claimants worked alternating shifts and not every day. Taking judicial notice of COVID-19 disruptions, the Court found the Respondent was not operating at full capacity and that paying half salary for a month in which only half the days were worked would be unreasonable and unconscionable.
Leave pay and public holidays
Both claims dismissed for lack of proof and the statutory lapsing of untaken leave
Terminal dues already included an element of leave pay, and the Claimants did not show any shortfall; under Section 28(4) of the Employment Act untaken leave must be taken within the statutory window. On public holidays, the Claimants produced no evidence of working gazetted holidays without pay, and the burden of proving excess work rests on the employee.
Fairness of termination
Not determined; the issue was not pleaded despite being argued in submissions
Although the Claimants submitted on the substantive and procedural fairness of the redundancy, they did not plead those issues in the Statement of Claim, which identified the dispute solely as failure to pay terminal benefits. No declaration of unfair termination or attendant reliefs was sought, so the question did not arise for determination.
Legal principles established
#- An employer declared redundant employees must be paid severance pay at not less than fifteen days' pay for each completed year of service, a statutory obligation couched in mandatory terms
- Where a consolidated salary falls below the statutory minimum wage, the employee is entitled to the proven underpayment
- The burden of proving work done in excess of the legal maximum (including work on public holidays) rests with the employee
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Claimant awarded severance pay of Kshs. 142,500.00, computed at 15 days' pay for each of the 15 years served
- 2.The 2nd Claimant awarded severance pay of Kshs. 89,250.00, computed at 15 days' pay for each of the 7 years served
- 3.The 3rd Claimant awarded severance pay of Kshs. 101,146.08, computed at 15 days' pay for each of the 12 years served
- 4.The 3rd Claimant further awarded Kshs. 48,876.48 (Kshs. 1,357.68 * 36 months) being underpayments for 36 months
- 5.The 4th Claimant awarded severance pay of Kshs. 142,500.00, computed at 15 days' pay for each of the 12 years served
- 6.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the employment dispute referred through the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers (KUDHEIHA Workers Union); Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & 3 others v Goodhope Caterers Limited (Cause E046 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2852 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2852/eng@2025-10-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.