[2021] KEELRC 2382 (KLR)
The court found that the claims for overtime and public holiday pay constituted continuing injuries that ceased upon the claimant's retirement on 31.12.2013. Since the suit was filed on 19.11.2015, these claims were time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which requires such claims to be brought...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 2382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Ernest Msafiri Morris; Respondent: Atta (K) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 840 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Retirement Notice, Overtime Claims, Public Holiday Pay, Limitation Periods
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ernest Msafiri Morris
Claimant
Atta (K) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to three months' salary in lieu of notice upon retirement.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to overtime and public holiday pay for the period worked.
- 3 Whether the claims for overtime and public holiday pay are time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claims for overtime and public holiday pay constituted continuing injuries that ceased upon the claimant's retirement on 31.12.2013. Since the suit was filed on 19.11.2015, these claims were time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which requires such claims to be brought within 12 months of cessation. Regarding the claim for three months' notice pay, the court held that the claimant failed to provide evidence of a practice or contractual obligation for such notice, as no examples of other employees receiving three months' notice were presented. The respondent's failure to participate in the hearing did not shift the burden of proof. Consequently,...
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The claimant's memorandum of claim is dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. 840 OF 2015
ERNEST MSAFIRI MORRIS............................................................................CLAIMANT
- VERSUS -
ATTA (K) LIMITED.....................................................................................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday 19th November, 2021)
JUDGMENT
The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on 19. 11. 2015 through M/S Njiru & Company Advocates. The claimant was employed by the respondent in 1977 on permanent basis and as at retirement on 31. 12. 2013 he earned Kshs. 57, 000. 00 per month in the position of a Shift Miller. He was paid a sum of Kshs. 366, 641. 00 and he signed a discharge voucher for settlement of final dues or claims. He claims that he was not given three months’ retirement notice as required by law. He also claims overtime over the period worked for 863 hours at Kshs. 863 x 1. 5 x 99, 125 making Kshs.128, 317. 00. His testimony was that by practice retiring staff were given 3 months’ notice and he was given only 11 days’ notice. Further, he testified that he reported at work at 7. 00am to 7. 00pm being 12 hours instead of the statutory 12 hours. He testified and claimed that over the period worked he worked on public holidays but he was not paid for 36 hours amounting to Kshs.34, 297. 00 and totalling Kshs. 162, 614. 00. He prayed for judgment against the respondent for:
a) Three months’ salary in lieu of notice.
b) Overtime Kshs. 128, 317. 00.
c) Public holidays Kshs.162, 614. 00.
d) Costs of the suit.
e) Any other relief that the Court may deem just and expedient to grant.
The respondent filed the response to memorandum of claim on 22. 03. 2016 through Eric Ntabo & Company Advocates. The respondent admitted that it employed the claimant as pleaded for the claimant. The respondent stated that the claimant was retired and was paid full retirement benefits and terminal dues. Further the claimant signed a discharge voucher for settlement of final claims. The suit is an abuse of court process and it should be dismissed with costs.
Despite service of a hearing notice the respondent did not attend at the hearing. Final submissions were filed for the claimant. The Court has considered all the material on record.
The only issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies as prayed for.
The Court finds that the claims for the overtime and work on public holidays were continuing injuries running throughout the years of service and ceased to run on the retirement date being 31. 12. 2013. The suit being filed on 19. 11. 2015, the Court finds that the claims were time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 which provides for 12 months from cessation of the continuing injury as the time of limitation. On notice pay, the Court finds that the claimant has not established the alleged practice of three months’ notice for retiring employees as no evidence of such employees who received three months’ notice was provided. The Court considers that the respondent failed to participate in the hearing and final submissions and each party to bear own costs of the suit.
In conclusion judgment is entered for the respondent against the claimant for dismissal of the claimant’s memorandum of claim with orders each party to bear own costs of the suit.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT MOMBASA THIS FRIDAY 19TH NOVEMBER, 2021.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE