https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2218

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **APPEAL NUMBER E018 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** MARISELA KANINI MATATA ................................................................ APPELLANT **AND** RIFT VALLEY SPORTS CLUB ............................................................. RESPONDENT [An Appeal from the Judgment of the Hon. Chief Magistrate’s Court [Hon. Kibellion] in Nakuru C.M.E.L.R.C Cause E029 of 2022 between the Parties herein, dated 30th January 2025] *Rika J* *Court Assistant: Emmanuel Kiprono* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* *M Korongo & Company Advocates for the Appellant* *Kirui Kiprotich & Company Advocates for the Respondent* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Appellant filed Claim against the Respondent, her former Employer, at the Trial Court, for unfair termination. 2. She pleaded that she was employed as head of finance, until 30th September 2019, when she was summarily dismissed. 3. She asked the Trial Court to find that termination was unfair and grant her 1-month salary in lieu of notice; gratuity; breach of contract [damages?]; compensation; certificate of service; costs; and any other suitable relief. 4. The Trial Court found in her favour, declaring that termination was unfair. She was awarded compensation equivalent of 6 months’ salary at Kshs. 198,000 and 1-month salary in lieu of notice, at Kshs. 33,000 - total Kshs. 231,000, together with costs. 5. She was not satisfied with the award and filed Memorandum of Appeal dated 4th February 2025. She lists 7 Grounds of Appeal, summarized below: - 6. The Trial Court erred in its calculation of compensation and notice pay. 7. Judgment was against weight of the evidence. 8. The Trial Court erred by disregarding the Appellant’s evidence on gratuity, bonus and compensation. 9. The Trial Court did not appreciate the Appellant’s documentary evidence and displayed bias against the Appellant. 10. It is proposed by the Appellant that: - 11. The Appeal is allowed. 12. The Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside, and replaced with a Judgment of this Court. 13. Costs to the Appellant. 14. The Respondent does not seem to have attended Court at any time, when procedural directions issued. The Appellant confirmed service of the Record of Appeal. It was directed that the Appeal is considered and determined on the strength of the Record of Appeal and Submissions. The Appellant filed Submissions dated 22nd May 2026. 15. She submits that the Trial Court erred, by adopting the wrong gross pay in computation of the awards made. Her correct gross monthly salary was Kshs. 61,190. Gratuity was contractually and legally payable. The Appellant tendered comprehensive documentary evidence, establishing her entitlement to gratuity and bonus. Compensation granted was miniscule. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Trial Court appears to have erred, by adopting a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 33,000 in awarding the Appellant. 2. Her oral evidence at the Trial Court on 21st September 2023, was that she was being paid a monthly gross salary of Kshs. 51,000. 3. Her employment contract dated 1st March 2018, provided for basic salary of 45,000 and house allowance of Kshs. 5,000 -total Kshs. 50,000. 4. The last contract dated 11th March 2019, provided for the same basic salary, but enhanced house allowance to Kshs.6,000 -total Kshs. 51,000, the gross monthly salary claimed by the Appellant in her evidence. 5. She exhibited her pay slips for the months of July and September 2019. They both confirm that she was entitled to monthly basic pay of Kshs. 45,000 and house allowance of Kshs. 6,000. 6. The pay slips also capture other benefits such as service charge, and leave traveling allowance, which were variable benefits, not to be included for purposes of computing compensation and notice pay. The amount of Kshs. 61, 190 claimed by the Appellant as her correct gross monthly salary, captures variable and invariable benefits. 7. The Trial Court appears to have adopted a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 33,000, from a letter of promotion issued to the Appellant way back in 2016, contained in page 13 of the Record of Appeal. 8. The correct gross monthly pay ought to have been Kshs. 51,000, not Kshs. 61, 190 urged by the Appellant, or Kshs. 33,000 adopted by the Court. 9. Clause 16 of her last contract, provided for gratuity at the rate of 12% gross pay for each consecutive year. The previous contract likewise had a gratuity clause, albeit based on 21 days’ salary for complete year of service. The Trial Court erred in concluding that gratuity was not anchored on contract. 10. Each contract provided for gratuity differently, and in issue was gratuity for the last contract, at 12% of the annual salary. 11. The Court has not found any evidence on record, to support the prayer for bonus. It was not captured in any contract. The Appellant does not clarify in her Submissions, what was the basis for her pursuit of bonus. Bonus is widely accepted to be given at the discretion of the Employer, based on such considerations as business productivity, and individual performance. 12. The award of compensation equivalent of 6 months’ salary was not miniscule, as submitted by the Appellant. She worked for about 6 years. The Trial Court did not exercise its discretion in assessment of compensatory award, injudiciously. Compensation was however granted based on the wrong gross pay. **IT IS ORDERED**: - 1. **The Appeal is allowed.** 2. **The Appellant is granted equivalent of 6 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 306,000; 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 51,000; and 12% annual salary in gratuity at Kshs. 73,440 – total Kshs. 430,440.** 3. **Costs to the Appellant.** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th day of July 2026. James Rika Judge