[2016] KEELRC 1195 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1195 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was a member of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), as evidenced by her payslip and unchallenged by any contrary averment. Section 35(6) of the Employment Act, 2007, expressly excludes employees who are members of the NSSF from entitlement to service pay. Since the claimant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1195 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Christine Nafula Munialo; Respondent: Appex Security Services Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 305 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Gratuity, Nssf Contributions, Termination of Employment, Statutory Exemptions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Service Gratuity Nssf Contributions Termination of Employment Statutory Exemptions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Nafula Munialo

Claimant

Appex Security Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to service gratuity under section 35(5)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether membership and contributions to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) exclude entitlement to service pay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was a member of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), as evidenced by her payslip and unchallenged by any contrary averment. Section 35(6) of the Employment Act, 2007, expressly excludes employees who are members of the NSSF from entitlement to service pay. Since the claimant did not allege or prove that the NSSF deductions were not remitted, she fell within the statutory exclusion. Therefore, her claim for service gratuity lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for payment of service gratuity is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.