Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Ken Oluoch v Postal Corporation of Kenya Limited [2017] KEELRC 449

REPUBLIC OF KENYA EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI CAUSE NO. 853 OF 2010 KEN OLUOCH..................................................................CLAIMANT VERSUS POSTAL CORPORATION OF KENYA LIMITED....RESPONDENT Ongoji for claimant Miller for respondent RULING 1. The respondent seeks an order for review of the judgment of the court delivered on the 9 th December 2016 on the grounds that:(i.) The gratuity was awarded based on the gross salary instead of the basic salary as provided in the contract of service. (ii.) The court ought to have awarded equivalent of one month’s salary in lieu of notice and not three months’ salary. (iii.) The claimant ought not to have been granted 10 months’ salary as compensation since he had not made request for renewal of contract. 2. The application is supported by an affidavit of Julius Opio sworn on 13th August of 2012. 3. The clamant filed grounds of opposition to the application on 16th May 2016 as follows: 4. The application is misconceived, mischievous and in bad faith since it lacks basis. 5. There is no error on the face of the judgment and the application is a disguised appeal on the decision of the court. Determination Gratuity 6. The court is satisfied that the award of gratuity ought to be calculated at a rate of 25% of the basic

page 1 of 2

salary earned during the period and not on the gross salary in terms of the gratuity clause in the contract of service signed by the parties. The award in judgment of the court is reviewed accordingly. Notice Pay 7. The court is satisfied that the claimant was entitled to the equivalent of three months’ salary in lieu of notice in terms of the termination clause in the contract of service signed by the parties. Compensation 8. This was a deliberate finding of fact and law by the court and may only be challenged by an appeal to the Court of Appeal and not by an application for review. 9. The judgment of the court is reviewed accordingly. 10. Each party to bear their own costs of the application. Dated, Signed and Delivered on this 17th Day of November 2017 MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA JUDGE

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.