Angaya v Texas Alarms(K) Ltd (Cause 78 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 465 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan security guard lost his Kshs.1.09 million underpayment and overtime claim because he could not prove it with proper records and comparisons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was underpaid relative to the Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) Orders
Not proved. The payslips showed salary progression with separate house allowance entries, and the Claimant produced no comparative analysis identifying the prescribed minimum wage, house allowance, actual wage and shortfall for each applicable Wage Order.
The Court examined the Respondent's payslips which showed a salary progression broken into basic salary and house allowance. The Claimant's schedule was a global computation without a period-by-period comparison against the relevant Wage Orders. Citing Securex Agencies, the Court held that a claim of statutory underpayment requires a clear comparison between the applicable Wage Order and actual remuneration, and the burden under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act remained on the Claimant.
Whether the Claimant proved unpaid overtime
Not proved in the sum claimed. The payslips showed intermittent overtime payments; while the 'inclusive of overtime' contractual clause could not be relied upon by the Respondent, the Claimant produced no rosters or attendance records establishing unpaid overtime across thirteen years.
The payslips contained separate entries for off days, public holidays and overtime, showing that overtime was treated as a distinct earning, thereby defeating the Respondent's reliance on the contractual clause. However, intermittent payments did not establish unpaid overtime throughout the claimed period. The Claimant's computation assumed uninterrupted overtime without reconciling payments already made, and no duty schedules, rosters or attendance registers were produced.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
No. Neither head of claim was proved, so no monetary reliefs were available and the claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
Having found that neither underpayment nor unpaid overtime was proved on a balance of probabilities, the Court held that none of the monetary reliefs were available. It noted the Certificate of Service had been issued and there was no dispute regarding retirement benefits outside the claims. In view of the long employment relationship, each party was ordered to bear its own costs and interest was declined.
Legal principles established
#- A claim founded on alleged statutory underpayment must be supported by a clear comparison between the applicable Wage Order and the actual remuneration received; a global computation is insufficient.
- Where an employer's own payroll records treat overtime as a distinct earning, the employer cannot rely on a contractual clause deeming remuneration inclusive of overtime to defeat an overtime claim.
- Where the employer produces payroll records showing payment of overtime, the employee must lay a factual foundation demonstrating why those payments were insufficient and identify the specific overtime omitted.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim for salary underpayment amounting to Kshs.392,840.91 is dismissed.
- 2.The claim for overtime amounting to Kshs.701,365.32 is dismissed.
- 3.Consequently, the entire Memorandum of Claim is dismissed.
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs.
- 5.Interest is declined.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Rule 59 (uncontested hearing); employment and labour relations dispute
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Angaya v Texas Alarms(K) Ltd (Cause 78 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 465 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause (Mombasa), Memorandum of Claim dated 20th March 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/465/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.