Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2947 (KLR)

Chepkemboi v East African Portland Cement PLC (Cause 457 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2947 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 October 2025
BOByram Ongaya
481 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court awarded an employee full contractual gratuity of Kshs.723,540 and dismissed the employer's unproven counterclaim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, through Chege & Sang Advocates, filed an amended memorandum of claim dated 28.05.2023. The respondent, through Mwaniki Gachoka & Company Advocates, filed a statement of response and counterclaim dated 14.11.2023. The parties recorded a partial consent judgment on 04.03.2025, and by consent order of 29.07.2025 confined the residual issues to whether the claimant was entitled to gratuity and whether the respondent was entitled to its counterclaim, to be determined on pleadings, documents and final submissions. On gratuity, the court found that by the letter of 23.10.2019 the claimant's terms changed to contract on a gross salary of Kshs.194,500.00, with clause 14 providing gratuity at 31% of consolidated monthly salary for each year served. Serving from 24.10.2019 to termination in October 2020, the claimant was awarded Kshs.723,540.00, the court noting the respondent admitted the service period but calculated gratuity for only one month, contrary to the contract. On the counterclaim for Kshs.570,000.00 rent, Kshs.109,548.73 electricity bills and Kshs.604,220.00 value of cement, the court held these were special damages that had to be specifically pleaded with particulars and strictly proved, which was not done; particulars of the house, cement transactions and electricity bills were not pleaded, and no evidence showed continued occupation after termination. The counterclaim was dismissed. The court made no costs order in the judgment as delivered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was entitled to gratuity under the contract

Holding

Gratuity awarded at 31% of consolidated monthly salary for the contract period October 2019 to October 2020, totalling Kshs.723,540.00

Reasoning

The letter of 23.10.2019 provided for gratuity in clause 14 at 31% of the consolidated monthly salary for each year served. The claimant served from 24.10.2019 until termination in October 2020 on a gross salary of Kshs.194,500.00. The court computed 194,500 x 12 x 31% = Kshs.723,540.00, noting the respondent's admission of the period but its erroneous calculation of only one month, which was outside the contractual provisions.

p. 1
02

Whether the respondent's counterclaim was proved

Holding

Counterclaim dismissed for failure to plead particulars and strictly prove the special damages claimed

Reasoning

The counterclaims (rent, electricity bills and value of cement) were in the nature of special damages requiring specific pleading with particulars and strict proof. The respondent did not plead particulars of the allocated house, the cement transactions or the electricity bills. No evidence showed continued occupation of the house after termination. The parties had attempted to have the court reconcile accounts without witnesses or elaborate pleadings, which was improper.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded with due particulars and then strictly proved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The counterclaim is dismissed
  2. 2.The respondent to pay the claimant gratuity of Kshs.723,540.00
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claim and counterclaim (provision not stated in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chepkemboi v East African Portland Cement PLC (Cause 457 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2947/eng@2025-10-30

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