[2019] KEELRC 164 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 164 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant failed to provide evidence supporting his assertion that the Respondent used the wrong monthly salary to calculate his severance pay for the period he worked at Kenya Railways Corporation. The Concession Agreement, which would have clarified the terms of transfer and computation of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 164 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Edward Rashid Makore; Respondent: Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 538 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Severance Pay, Terminal Dues, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Employment Transfer
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Severance Pay Terminal Dues Collective Bargaining Agreement Employment Transfer

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Rashid Makore

Claimant

Rift Valley Railways (K) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent used the correct monthly salary to calculate the Claimant's severance pay for the period worked at Kenya Railways Corporation.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was underpaid in terminal dues following redundancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant failed to provide evidence supporting his assertion that the Respondent used the wrong monthly salary to calculate his severance pay for the period he worked at Kenya Railways Corporation. The Concession Agreement, which would have clarified the terms of transfer and computation of dues, was not produced in court. The redundancy process itself was not challenged, and the only live issue was the computation basis for severance pay. In the absence of documentary evidence to support the Claimant's claim, the court held that the claim was not proved and dismissed it. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant's claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.