Mbeka v Kenya Power & Lighting Company (Cause E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2986 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled gratuity is only payable if the applicable CBA expressly covers the employee, narrowing how such awards are enforced.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the award of gratuity constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated because the judgment awarded gratuity conditionally, in accordance with the terms of the CBA, which neither party placed before the court.
The court reiterated the standard from Muyodi that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and require no elaboration. Since the judgment expressly stated gratuity 'shall be addressed in accordance with the terms of the CBA', the award was conditional and not a general award; whether the claimant qualified depended on the CBA, so the applicant's complaint disclosed no self-evident error.
Whether sufficient reason existed to justify review under Rule 74(1)(d) and clarification under Rule 74(1)(c)
Yes. Although no error apparent on the face of the record existed, sufficient reason justified review, and the case for clarification of the judgment was made out under Rule 74(1)(c).
Having perused the 2017/2020 CBA dated 27th January 2020, the court found no general gratuity provision for staff; gratuity was payable only to temporary/contract employees on three-year contracts at 15% of three years' basic wage on successful completion. The applicant's contention that the claimant was permanent and pensionable was relevant to whether gratuity was payable under the CBA, warranting review/clarification.
Whether the claimant qualified for gratuity under the operative CBA
If the claimant was not serving under a three-year employment contract in accord with the CBA, he did not qualify for gratuity and none is payable.
The only gratuity provision in the 2017/2020 CBA appeared under Appendix 'C' on Terms of Service of Temporary/Contract employees, providing 15% of three years' basic wage on successful completion of three-year contracts. The court could decipher no other instance where gratuity was payable, and the applicant's reference to 31% per year served was unsupported by any clause of the operative CBA.
Legal principles established
#- An error or mistake apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and discernible without analysis or elaborate argumentation; where the court could have taken a different view, there is no such error.
- Payment of gratuity over and above pension is not unlawful; it is dependent on what the contracting parties agreed, and if payable it must be in accordance with the express provisions of the CBA in force.
- Gratuity is neither pension nor service or severance pay but must have been a contractual term between the parties.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment delivered on 31st July 2025 reviewed in terms of award (c) as follows: 'Gratuity as per the operative CBA (2017/2020 provided that the claimants meets the criteria provided by the CBA.'
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbeka v Kenya Power & Lighting Company (Cause E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2986 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E008 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2986/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.