Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Equatorial Nut Processors Limited

4. It is the Claimant’s contention that the termination of the grievants was without any reason. That further, the Respondent failed to pay the grievants their terminal dues upon termination of their employment. The Claimant further avers that the grievants were underpaid throughout their employment. 5. According to the Claimant, it reported a trade dispute to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, following which a conciliator was appointed. According to the Claimant, the conciliator invited the parties to submit their respective proposals and to attend conciliation meetings, but the Respondent failed to submit its proposal and attend the meetings. That as such, the conciliator issued a certificate referring the dispute to court. 6. On account of the foregoing, the Claimant seeks an order declaring that the termination of the grievants' employment was unfair and unlawful and that the said grievants be reinstated to the positions they held prior to their termination from employment. In the alternative, the Claimant prays that each of the grievants be awarded notice pay, accrued leave days, if any, underpaid wages, compensation for unlawful termination together with the costs of the suit. 7. The Respondent opposed the Claim through a Response dated 7th March 2025, contending that the Claimant lacks the locus standi to represent the grievants as it 2

page 2 of 29

has not provided any proof of membership nor a recognition agreement with the Claimant. 8. The Respondent further contended that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to determine the matter herein. 9. The Respondent further avers that the grievants were served with formal redundancy notices dated 24th August 2023 informing them of its intention to terminate their employment on account of redundancy. 10.It is the Respondent’s further contention that the grievants were not its employees as they have not produced letters of employment. 11.The Respondent further avers that the claims for underpayment made by the grievants are baseless and without merit. 12.In light of the foregoing, the Respondent has urged the court to dismiss the suit by the Claimant with costs. 13.In a rejoinder to the Respondent’s response, the Claimant filed a Reply dated 18th November 2025 in which it asserts that the grievants are its members. That further, the claim herein was referred to this court under Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following conciliation meetings in which the parties did not agree. 3

page 3 of 29

14.The Claimant further avers that the grievants’ employment history is well founded as per the statements from the NSSF and pay slips which prove that they were employed by the Respondent. 15.The Claimant further denied the Respondent’s assertion that the grievants were served with redundancy notices. 16.The Claimant further asserted that it had proved the claim for underpayment. 17.Consequently, the Claimant prays that the claim be considered on its merits and the prayers sought be granted. 18.The matter proceeded for hearing on 15th April 2026, during which both sides called oral evidence in support of their respective cases. Claimant’s Case 19.All six (6) grievants testified in support of their respective claims. Each adopted her witness statement as evidence in chief and produced the list and bundle of documents filed by the Claimant on their behalf as exhibits before the Court. 20.The common thread running through the grievants’ testimony was that they were employed by the Respondent on diverse dates and in various capacities, and that their employment was unlawfully terminated on 18th November 2023. 4

page 4 of 29

21.The grievants asserted that the termination of their respective employments was unfair and unlawful, having been effected without notice and without being informed of any wrongdoing on their part that would have warranted termination of their employment. 22.The grievants further testified that their employment was oral and that they were not issued with letters of appointment. They added that they had nevertheless relied on the pay slips and NSSF statements filed in Court as evidence of their employment with the Respondent. 23.The grievants also contended that, during their respective periods of employment, they were remunerated at rates below those prescribed under the applicable General Wages Order. Respondent’s Case 24.The Respondent called Timothy Nyaga, who testified as RW1. Mr. Nyaga identified himself as the Respondent’s Human Resource Officer. Equally, RW1 adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced the Respondent’s list and bundle of documents as exhibits before the Court. 25.RW1 testified that there was no recognition agreement between the Respondent and the Claimant Union and that the grievants were not members of the Union. He therefore contended that the Claimant lacked the requisite locus standi to institute and sustain the present proceedings. 5

page 5 of 29

26.He further testified that the grievants were duly served with a formal notice of redundancy dated 24th August 2023, notifying them of the Respondent’s intention to terminate their employment on account of redundancy. 27.On the claims for underpayment, RW1 averred that the grievants had incorrectly computed their alleged underpayments under the Regulation of Wages Order. He maintained that the calculations presented were based on erroneous wage scales and did not accurately reflect the applicable minimum wage rates prescribed for the respective job categories, locations and periods of employment. 28.RW1 further denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and the grievants within the meaning of Section 2 of the Employment Act. 29.With regard to the 1st grievant, Jacinta Muthoni Mwangi, RW1 testified that she was employed as a Store Clerk until 2016 (sic). According to him, the position of Store Clerk fell within the category of unskilled labourer under the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. He stated that, between 2010 and 2016, the applicable minimum wage for unskilled employees ranged from Kshs. 3,347 in 2010 to Kshs. 5,436 in 2016. 6

page 6 of 29

30.RW1 further testified that, during the same period, the 1 st grievant earned a gross monthly wage of Kshs. 7,500 in 2010, which increased to Kshs. 15,616 in 2016, and was therefore above the prescribed minimum wage. 31.He stated that, in 2016, the 1st grievant was promoted to the position of Quality Controller, which fell under the category of Ungraded Artisan in Column 4 of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order for all other areas. The minimum wage for an Ungraded Artisan was Kshs 13,309 in 2017 and Kshs. 15,652 by 2022. 32.According to RW1, the 1st grievant’s payslips showed that she earned Kshs. 17,527 in 2017 and Kshs. 16,842 by 2023, which exceeded the applicable statutory minimum. He consequently maintained that the 1st grievant was not underpaid at any time during her employment. 33.As regards the 2nd grievant, Peninah Wambura Muriuki, RW1 testified that she was employed as a Sorter in 2004 and was subsequently promoted to Quality Controller in 2013. He stated that, between 2010 and 2016, the prescribed minimum wage for unskilled labourers ranged from Kshs. 3,347 in 2010 to Kshs. 4,258 in 2016. He noted that documentary evidence of the grievant’s earnings during that period was absent and contended that the absence of such records undermined her claim for alleged underpayment. 7

page 7 of 29

34.RW1 further testified that, upon her promotion to Quality Controller in 2013, the 2nd grievant earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 16,515, which increased to Kshs. 19,342 by 2023. 35.He stated that the position of Quality Controller fell under the category of Ungraded Artisan in Column 4 of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. The prescribed minimum wage for an Ungraded Artisan was Kshs. 10,071 in 2013 and Kshs. 15,652 by 2022. 36.It was therefore RW1’s testimony that the 2nd grievant’s remuneration remained substantially above the applicable statutory minimum throughout her employment. 37.In respect of the 3rd grievant, RW1 testified that she was employed as a Sorter in May 2005 and was promoted to Quality Controller in 2016. He stated that the position of Sorter was classified as unskilled labour, for which the applicable minimum wages ranged from Kshs. 3,347 in 2010 to Kshs. 4,258 in 2016. He further testified that the 3rd grievant earned Kshs. 4,600 in 2005 and Kshs. 15,434 in 2015, which, according to him, exceeded the applicable statutory minimum. 38.RW1 further testified that, upon her promotion to Quality Controller, which was classified as an Ungraded Artisan, in 2016, the 3 rd grievant earned Kshs. 15,434, which increased to Kshs. 19,407 in 2021. He stated that the applicable minimum wage for Ungraded Artisans was Kshs. 13,309 in 2016 and Kshs. 15,652 in 2022. 8

page 8 of 29

39.He maintained that the 3rd grievant was adequately and fairly remunerated at all material times and that her claim for underpayment was unsubstantiated. 40.With respect to the 4th grievant, Zuhura Wanjiku Hadi, RW1 testified that she was employed as an Inspector in 2004 and was promoted to Supervisor in 2009. He contended that the 4th grievant had not produced the relevant Regulation of Wages (General) Orders covering the period up to 2010, thereby making it impossible to determine whether there had been any underpayment. In his view, any claim relating to that period was therefore speculative and unsubstantiated. 41.RW1 further testified that the payslips produced by the 4th grievant commenced in 2006 and showed that she earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 6,100, which increased to Kshs. 10,600 by 2008. He maintained that these figures demonstrated that she was remunerated at or above the statutory minimum applicable to unskilled labourers during the relevant period. 42.He added that, upon her promotion to Supervisor in 2009, the 4 th grievant’s salary increased further, and by 2010 she was earning Kshs. 14,500. Her salary subsequently increased to Kshs. 19,800 by 2023. RW1 stated that the position of Supervisor fell within the category of Ungraded Artisan of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. 43.He further testified that the minimum wage for Ungraded Artisans was Kshs. 6,943 in 2010 and Kshs. 15,652 in 2022. In his view, the 4th grievant’s remuneration 9

page 9 of 29

consistently exceeded the applicable statutory minimum. He therefore maintained that she was fully and fairly remunerated at all material times. 44.RW1 further testified that the 5th grievant, Elizabeth Mwende, was employed as a Sorter in 2008 and promoted to Quality Controller in 2010. He stated that the position of Quality Controller was classified as an Ungraded Artisan of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. 45.According to RW1, the payslips produced by the 5 th grievant showed that she earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 17,210 in 2015, which increased to Kshs. 19,407 by 2023. He stated that these amounts were above the statutory minimum wage of Kshs. 11,279 in 2015 and Kshs. 15,652 in 2022 applicable to Ungraded Artisans. 46.RW1 therefore maintained that the 5th grievant was adequately and fairly remunerated at all material times. 47.As to the 6th grievant, Joyce Wanjiru Irungu, RW1 testified that she was employed as a Sorter in 1997 and promoted to Inspector in 2004. He stated that the position of Inspector was classified as an Ungraded Artisan of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. 48.He further testified that the applicable minimum wage for Ungraded Artisans was Kshs. 13,975 in 2018 and Kshs. 15,652 in 2022. According to the payslips 10

page 10 of 29

produced by the 6th grievant, she earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 20,730 in 2018, which remained at Kshs. 20,730 in 2023. RW1 maintained that these figures demonstrated that she was consistently paid above the applicable statutory minimum during the period in question. 49.In RW1’s view, the 6th grievant was adequately and fairly remunerated at all material times and her claim for underpayment was baseless and unsubstantiated. Submissions 50.On its part, the Claimant submitted that the six (6) grievants were not declared redundant as the Respondent did not apply the procedure under Section 40 of the Employment Act. 51.The Claimant further submitted that the employment of the six (6) grievants was unlawfully terminated without adherence to the procedural requirements prescribed under Section 41 of the Employment Act. It was further submitted that none of the six (6) grievants was informed of the alleged mistake or misconduct relied upon as the basis for their termination, thus rendering the termination unlawful. 52. The Claimant further submitted that all the grievants were employed by the Respondent, which had at one time changed its name to Kenya Farmnut and later to Equatorial Nut Processors. In the Claimant’s view, the two names refer to one and the same person, being the Respondent herein. 11

page 11 of 29

53.At the time of writing this Judgment, the Respondent’s written submissions were not traceable either on the Court’s physical record or on the online filing portal. Analysis and Determination 54.Having considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the evidentiary material on record, and the rival submissions, the Court finds that the following issues arise for determination: a) Whether an employment relationship existed between the Respondent and the grievants; b) Whether the termination of the grievants’ employment was unfair and unlawful; and c) Whether the grievants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim. Employment relationship? 55.The Respondent has denied the existence of an employment relationship between itself and the grievants. However, the record speaks otherwise. The payslips produced by the grievants were issued by the Respondent, demonstrating that the Respondent remunerated them. This, in turn, presupposes that the grievants rendered services to the Respondent for which they were paid. Indeed, one wonders why the Respondent would remunerate the grievants and issue them with payslips in the absence of an employment relationship. 12

page 12 of 29

56.What’s more, despite denying the existence of an employment relationship, RW1 testified extensively on the grievants’ remuneration. In particular, he sought to demonstrate that the grievants were paid within the prescribed wage rates and gave details of when each grievant was employed, promoted, and the salary earned in each position. 57.In light of the foregoing, the Court is persuaded and finds that the grievants were employees of the Respondent. Unfair and unlawful termination of employment? 58.The reason for the termination of the grievants’ employment is not apparent from the record, as none of the grievants was issued with a letter of termination. 59.However, in its Response to the Memorandum of Claim, the Respondent pleaded that the grievants had been issued with notices of redundancy. The Respondent’s pleading therefore suggests that, from its perspective, the termination of the grievants’ employment was occasioned by redundancy. 60.It is well settled that termination on account of redundancy must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] KECA 403 (KLR. 13

page 13 of 29

61.Substantive justification concerns the existence of valid and fair reasons for the redundancy, while procedural fairness concerns the process followed in effecting the redundancy. 62.As regards substantive justification, Section 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Employment Act requires an employer to demonstrate that the termination of employment was fair, valid and based on its operational requirements. 63.In view of this evidential burden, the Respondent, as the employer, was expected to adduce evidence in support of its pleaded position that the grievants’ employment was terminated on account of redundancy. The Respondent, however, failed to do so. 64.Indeed, no evidence was placed before the Court to establish or justify the alleged redundancy as the reason for the termination of the grievants’ employment. 65.In the case of Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [supra], the Court reckoned that while there may be underlying causes leading to a true redundancy situation, such as reorganization, the employer must nevertheless show that the termination is attributable to the redundancy. 66.Applying Section 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Employment Act to the present case, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to establish a valid and fair reason for terminating the grievants’ employment on the basis of its operational requirements. 14

page 14 of 29

67.Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge the requisite evidential burden of establishing substantive justification for the termination of the grievants’ employment on account of redundancy. 68.While it is apparent that Section 40 of the Employment Act permits an employer to terminate an employment contract on account of redundancy where its operational requirements so demand, the Respondent was nevertheless under an obligation to demonstrate that the grievant’s redundancy was genuine and substantively justified. 69.As regards procedural fairness in effecting redundancy, Section 40(1) of the Employment Act prescribes the following conditions that an employer must satisfy before terminating an employee’s employment on account of redundancy: a) where the employee is a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the union to which the employee is a member and the labour officer in charge of the area where the employee is employed of the reasons for, and the extent of, the intended redundancy not less than a month prior to the date of the intended date of termination on account of redundancy; b) where an employee is not a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the employee personally in writing and the labour officer; c) the employer has, in the selection of employees to be declared redundant had due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability 15

page 15 of 29

and reliability of each employee of the particular class of employees affected by the redundancy; d) where there is in existence a collective agreement between an employer and a trade union setting out terminal benefits payable upon redundancy; the employer has not placed the employee at a disadvantage for being or not being a member of the trade union; e) the employer has where leave is due to an employee who is declared redundant, paid off the leave in cash; f) the employer has paid an employee declared redundant not less than one month’s notice or one month’s wages in lieu of notice; and g) the employer has paid to an employee declared redundant severance pay at the rate of not less than fifteen days’ pay for each completed year of service. 70.Despite the Respondent’s pleading that it served the grievants with notices of redundancy dated 24th August 2023, communicating its intention to terminate their employment on account of redundancy, the Respondent did not exhibit the said notices in court. 71.In the absence of the alleged notices, the Court finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated compliance with the requirement under Section 40(1)(a) of the Employment Act to notify the grievants of its intention to declare redundancy. 16

page 16 of 29

72.Equally, there is no evidence that the Respondent served the County Labour Officer with the requisite notice of its intention to declare redundancy, as required under the second limb of Section 40(1)(a) of the Employment Act. 73.It therefore follows that the Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements prescribed under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act. 74.Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act further requires an employer, in selecting employees for redundancy, to have due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability and reliability of each employee within the affected class. 75.In the instant case, the Respondent neither demonstrated that a selection exercise was undertaken nor explained the criteria applied in identifying the grievants for redundancy. 76.In the absence of such evidence, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to discharge its obligation to demonstrate compliance with Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act. 77.The Respondent also failed to demonstrate compliance with the redundancy requirements relating to the statutory payments prescribed under Sections 40(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the Employment Act. These provisions contemplate payment for 17

page 17 of 29

accrued leave, one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice, and severance pay at the rate of not less than 15 days’ pay for each completed year of service. 78.Indeed, the record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent paid the grievants their statutory entitlements under Sections 40(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the Employment Act. In the absence of such evidence, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to discharge its statutory obligations in this regard. 79.Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements governing redundancy under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Needless to state, the termination of the grievants’ employment was procedurally unfair. 80.In sum, the Court finds that the termination of the grievants’ employment was unfair and unlawful. Reliefs? 81.In light of the foregoing finding that the termination of the grievants’ employment by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful, the Court awards each grievant one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice and compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act equivalent to eight (8) months of their respective monthly salaries. In determining the appropriate quantum of compensation, the Court has taken into account, inter alia, the considerably long duration of the employment 18

page 18 of 29

relationship between the Respondent and the grievants, as well as the circumstances in which their employment was terminated. 82.As regards the claim for service gratuity, the same is declined for want of a contractual or statutory basis for its payment. 83.The grievants have also claimed salary underpayments, contending that throughout their respective periods of employment, they were remunerated at rates below those prescribed under the applicable General Wage Orders. 84.With respect to the 1st grievant, Jacinta Muthoni Mwangi, she has averred that she was underpaid from 2003 until September 2023. The record shows that she was employed as a Store Clerk from May 2003 until 2016, when she was promoted to the position of Quality Controller. A review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period in question, namely Legal Notices Nos. 48 of 2003, 36 of 2004, 42 of 2005, 38 of 2006, 70 of 2009, 98 of 2010, 64 of 2011, 71 of 2012, 197 of 2013, 117 of 2015, 112 of 2017, 2 of 2018 and 125 of 2022, against the respective positions held by the 1st grievant during her employment, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION May, 2003 to April, 2004 GROSS SALARY PAID 3,246.00 MINIMUM UNDERPAYMENTS WAGES + HOUSE ALLOWANCE 4,444.75 14,385.00 19

page 19 of 29

May 2004- April, 2006 May, 2006-April, 2009 May, 2009-April, 2010 May, 2010- April, 2011 May 2011- April 2012 May 2012- April 2013 May 2013- April, 2015 May 2015- April, 2017 May 2017- April 2018 May 2018- April 2022 May 2022September 2023 TOTAL 4500.00 433.50 10,404.00 7500.00 6,300.85 Nil 7500.00 7,434.75 Nil 6,853.00 7,880.95 12,335.40 7,710.00 8,633.05 11,076.60 7,412.00 9,763.90 28,222.80 9,940.00 9,615.55 7,786.80 10,616.65 12,466.58 44,398.20 12,527.65 15,306.27 33,343.44 12.527.65 16,071.60 170,109.60 14,342.91 18,000.00 62,173.00 394,234.84 85.Therefore, the 1st grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 394,234.84, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. 86.The 2nd grievant, Peninah Wambura Muriuki, avers that she was underpaid from January 2004 until September 2023. The record shows that she was employed as a Sorter from January 2004 until 2013, when she was promoted to the position of Quality Controller. Although the 2nd grievant claims salary underpayment dating back to January 2004, she did not produce her pay slips for the period from January 20

page 20 of 29

2004 to December 2012. Consequently, the alleged underpayment for that period cannot be ascertained. 87.However, a review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period for which the relevant employment and remuneration records are available, namely Legal Notices Nos. 197 of 2013, 117 of 2015, 112 of 2017, 2 of 2018 and 125 of 2022, against the position held by the 2 nd grievant during the respective periods, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION GROSS SALARY PAID UNDERPAYMENTS 11,015.00 MINIMUM WAGES + HOUSE ALLOWANCE 11, 581.65 May, 2013April, 2014 May, 2014April, 2015 May, 2015April, 2017 May 2017April 2018 May 2018April 2022 May 2022September 2023 TOTAL 12,155.00 11633.57 NIL 12,155.00 12,971.43 19,594.20 12,155.00 15,306.27 37,815.24 14,342.91 16,071.60 82,976.88 14,342.91 18,000.00 62,170.53 6,799.80 209,356.65 88.Accordingly, the 2nd grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 209,356.65, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. 21

page 21 of 29

89.The 3rd grievant, Hellen Kabura, has claimed salary underpayment from 2005 until September 2023. From the record, she was employed as a Sorter in May 2005 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Inspector in 2011, a position she held until 2016, when she was promoted to the position of Quality Controller. A review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period in question, namely Legal Notices Nos. 42 of 2005, 38 of 2006, 70 of 2009, 98 of 2010, 64 of 2011, 71 of 2012, 197 of 2013, 117 of 2015, 112 of 2017, 2 of 2018 and 125 of 2022, against the respective positions held by the 3rd grievant during her employment, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION GROSS SALARY PAID January,2005- 4,600.00 April, 2006 May 20065,400.00 April 2009 May 20095,400.00 April 2010 May, 20106,853.00 April, 2011 May 20116,853.00 April 2012 May 20127,710.00 April 2013 May 20137,710.00 April 2015 May, 201510,934.00 April, 2017 May 201710,934.00 April 2018 May 201814,407.00 April 2022 May 202218,438.15 MINIMUM WAGE + HOUSE ALLOWANCE 3,394.80 UNDERPAYMENTS 3,186.65 NIL 3,760.50 NIL 4,136.55 NIL 7,457.75 7,257.00 8,434.68 8,696.10 9,615.55 45,733.26 10,769.40 NIL 15,306.27 52,467.24 16,071.60 79,900.80 18,000.00 NIL 22 NIL

page 22 of 29

September 2023 TOTAL 194,054.40 90.Accordingly, the 3rd grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 194,054.40, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. 91.The 4th grievant, Zuhura Wanjiku, has claimed salary underpayment for the period from 2007 to 2010. She avers that she was employed as a Sorter in January 1994 and was promoted to the position of Inspector in 2004. She was subsequently promoted to the position of Supervisor in 2009. A review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period in question, namely Legal Notices Nos. 38 of 2006, 70 of 2009 and 98 of 2010, against the respective positions held by the 4 th grievant during the relevant period, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION January, 2006April, 2006 May,2006 – April, 2009 May 2009April 2010 May, 2010December, 2010 GROSS SALARY PAID 6,100 MINIMUM UNDERPAYMENTS WAGE + HOUSE ALLOWANCE 5,257.80 NIL 6,100 6,300.85 7,230.60 6,230 7,434.75 14.457.00 9,500 8,178.80 NIL 21,687.60 TOTAL 23

page 23 of 29

92.Accordingly, the 4th grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 21,687.60, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. 93.The 5th grievant has averred that she was employed as a Sorter in 2004 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Inspector in 2010. She claims salary underpayment for the period from 2015 to September 2023. A review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period in question, namely Legal Notices Nos. 117 of 2015, 112 of 2017, 2 of 2018 and 125 of 2022, against the position held by the 5th grievant during the relevant period, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION GROSS SALARY PAID UNDERPAYMENTS 12,210.00 MINIMUM WAGE+ HOUSE ALLOWANCE 9,615.55 January, 2015April, 2015 May, 2015April, 2017 May 2017-April 2018 May 2018-April, 2022 May 2022September 2023 TOTAL 12,210.00 10,769.40 NIL 12,210.00 9,458.80 NIL 14,407.00 13,343.36 NIL 14,407.00 14,944.54 9,138.14 NIL 9,138.14 94.Accordingly, the 5th grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 9,138.14, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. 24

page 24 of 29

95.The 6th grievant, Joyce Wanjiru Irungu, averred that she was employed as a Sorter in January 1997 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Quality Controller in 2004. She claims salary underpayment for the period from 2018 to September 2023. A review of the applicable minimum wage orders for the period in question, namely Legal Notices Nos. 2 of 2018 and 125 of 2022, against the position held by the 6th grievant during the relevant period, establishes that she was underpaid as follows: DURATION January, 2018 to April, 2018 May 2018May 2022 May 2022September, 2023 TOTAL GROSS MINIMUM NDERPAYMENT SALARY PAID WAGE + HOUSE ALLOWANCE 15,730.00 15,306.27 NIL 15,730.00 16,071.60 NIL 15,730.00 18,000.00 38,590.00 38,590.00 96.Accordingly, the 6th grievant is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 38,590.00, being the amount due on account of salary underpayment. Orders 97.In the final analysis, the Claim succeeds, and the Court makes the following awards in favour of the grievants: a) 1st grievant (Jacinta Muthoni Mwangi) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Compensation for unfair termination of 25 Kshs 18,000.00

page 25 of 29

employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 144,000.00 Underpaid salary Kshs 394,234.84 Total Kshs 556,234.84 award b) 2nd grievant (Peninah Wambura Muriuki) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 18,000.00 Compensation for unfair termination of employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 144,000.00 Underpaid salary Kshs 209,356.65 Total award Kshs 371,356.65 c) 3rd grievant (Hellen Kabura Irungu) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 18,000.00 Compensation for unfair termination of employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 144,000.00 Underpaid salary Kshs 194,054.40 Total award Kshs 356,054.40 d) 4th grievant (Zuhura Wanjiku Hadi) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 19,800.00 Compensation for unfair termination of employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 158,400.00 26

page 26 of 29

Underpaid salary Kshs 21,687.60 Total award Kshs 199,887.60 e) 5th grievant (Elizabeth Mwende) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 14,944.54. Compensation for unfair termination of employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 119,556.32 Underpaid salary Kshs 9,138.14 Total award Kshs 143,639.00 f) 6th grievant (Joyce Wanjiru Irungu) One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs 18,000.00 Compensation for unfair termination of employment equivalent to eight (8) months’ salary Kshs 144,000.00 Underpaid salary Kshs 38,590.00 Total award Kshs 200,590.00 98.Interest shall accrue on the respective total sums at court rates with effect from 30 days after the date of this judgment until payment in full. 99.The Respondent shall issue each of the grievants with a certificate of service within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. 27

page 27 of 29

100. The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NYERI this 25th day of September 2026. ……………………………… STELLA RUTTO JUDGE In the presence of: For the Claimant Ms. Macharia For the Respondent No appearance Court Assistant Ndati ORDER In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21 st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which 28

page 28 of 29

impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. STELLA RUTTO JUDGE 29

page 29 of 29