[2022] KEELRC 175 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's evidence regarding his entitlement to gratuity was uncontroverted, as the respondents failed to file a response or appear in court. The appointment letter explicitly provided for a 30% gratuity for the period worked, and the claimant's testimony and documents were not challenged....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 175 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Humphrey Okuku Nakitari; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu; Respondent: County Secretary, County of Kisumu
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E042 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the claimant
- Legal Topics
- Terminal Benefits, Gratuity Entitlement, Employment Contracts, Uncontested Claims
- 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
Humphrey Okuku Nakitari
Claimant
County Government of Kisumu
Respondent
County Secretary, County of Kisumu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to gratuity as per the terms of his appointment letter.
- 2 Whether the respondents are liable to pay the claimed terminal dues despite alleging the claimant was paid by the national government.
- 3 Whether the respondents' failure to defend the suit affects the outcome.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's evidence regarding his entitlement to gratuity was uncontroverted, as the respondents failed to file a response or appear in court. The appointment letter explicitly provided for a 30% gratuity for the period worked, and the claimant's testimony and documents were not challenged. The court therefore accepted the claimant's evidence as true and entered judgment in his favour for the claimed sum. The respondents' prior assertion that the claimant was paid by the national government was not substantiated in court, and their failure to defend the suit was attributed to the office of the County Attorney. The court awarded the claimant Kshs 4,320,000 as...
Court Disposition
judgment for the claimant
Orders
- The claimant is awarded Kshs 4,320,000 as gratuity.
- The claimant is awarded costs on half-scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. E042 OF 2021
HUMPREY OKUKU NAKITARI ................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU ........................................1st RESPONDENT
COUNTY SECRETARY, COUNTY OF KISUMU ......................2nd RESPONFDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Humphrey Okuku Nakitari (the Claimant) was appointed as the County Secretary, County of Kisumu, on or around 25 February 2013 (on deployment from the Transition Authority).
2. On 8 December 2016, the Claimant requested to be allowed to vacate office by 7 February 2017.
3. On 27 July 2017, the County Government released the Claimant back to the national government.
4. The Claimant thereafter asked the County Government to be paid his terminal dues on 27 September 2017.
5. In a response dated 30 October 2017, the County Government informed the Claimant that the request would not be honoured as he had continued to draw this salary from the original employer and that the County Government had only been paying him top-up allowances.
6. The Claimant made another plea for the dues, and on 11 September 2020, the County Government informed him the initial stance would be maintained.
7. The Claimant then made a formal demand followed by the instant suit on 31 May 2021.
8. In the Statement of claim, the Claimant sought gratuity amounting to Kshs 4,320,000/-.
9. Despite service of Notice of summons and the Statement of Claim, the Respondents did not file a Response (affidavit of service filed on 23 November 2021 attested to the acknowledgement of service by the office of the County Attorney).
10. Consequently, the Cause proceeded to formal proof on 31 January 2022. The Claimant testified.
11. Among the document produced by the Claimant was an appointment letter dated 8 May 2013, wherein the monthly remuneration was set at Kshs 300,000/-.
12. The letter also provided for a 30% gratuity for the period worked.
13. Although the Claimant’s document suggests that the Respondents were not paying him a salary, the Court has no option but to find in his favour since his evidence was not controverted or rebutted.
14. The failure to defend the Cause must squarely lie in the office of the County Attorney in June 2021.
Conclusion and Orders
15. The Court enters judgment for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 4,320,000/-.
16. Claimant to have costs on half-scale since the Cause was not defended.
DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2022.
RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARB
JUDGE
APPEARANCES
FOR CLAIMANT AMONDI & CO. ADVOCATES
RESPONDENTS DID NOT APPEAR
COURT ASSISTANT CHRISPO AURA