[2019] KEELRC 495 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 495 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was entitled to service pay for the period served as a casual employee prior to his permanent contract, as he worked continuously and there was no alternative pension or separation pay. The court awarded one month of pay for each completed year of service for the relevant period....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 495 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Jeff Mutinda Kiliku; Respondent: Hasbah Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 728 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant.
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Service Pay Entitlement, House Allowance Claims, Casual to Permanent Employment, Limitation Periods, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Service Pay Entitlement House Allowance Claims Casual to Permanent Employment Limitation Periods Costs Award

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeff Mutinda Kiliku

Claimant

Hasbah Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to service pay for the period served as a casual employee prior to permanent employment.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to house allowance for the period prior to permanent employment.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for house allowance is time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was entitled to service pay for the period served as a casual employee prior to his permanent contract, as he worked continuously and there was no alternative pension or separation pay. The court awarded one month of pay for each completed year of service for the relevant period. However, the claim for house allowance was dismissed because it was not specifically pleaded or proved, and was time barred under the 12-month limitation period for continuing injuries as provided by section 90 of the Employment Act. The court also awarded costs to the claimant, having substantially succeeded in the suit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Kshs.33,176.00 as service pay to the claimant.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the suit.