Oruku v Captain Hawk Security Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E086 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2248 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)

Oruku v Captain Hawk Security Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E086 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2248 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)

The claimant’s evidence remained uncontroverted in any material respect because the respondent called no witness and produced no evidence; its bare denial did not displace the claim. The court therefore found no basis to vary the earlier ex parte judgment and entered judgment for the claimant in the sum claimed,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELRC 2248 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Dickson Okiru Oruku; Respondent: Captain Hawk Security Services Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E086 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Judgment After Ex Parte Proceedings Were Set Aside and Hearing Proceeded; Respondent Failed to Adduce Evidence
Outcome
Judgment entered for the claimant
Judges
["PA Ndege"]
Legal Topics
Underpayment of Wages, Overtime, Off Duty Compensation, Public Holiday Pay, Leave Pay, Service Pay, Costs, Ex Parte Judgment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Law Underpayment of Wages Overtime Off Duty Compensation Public Holiday Pay Leave Pay Service Pay Costs +2 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Okiru Oruku

Claimant

Captain Hawk Security Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Judgment After Ex Parte Proceedings Were Set Aside and Hearing Proceeded; Respondent Failed to Adduce Evidence

  1. 1 Whether the claimant proved entitlement to underpayments, overtime, off-duty, public holiday, leave and service pay.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent’s bare denials and failure to call evidence displaced the claimant’s case.
  3. 3 Whether there was any basis to vary the earlier ex parte judgment and decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s evidence remained uncontroverted in any material respect because the respondent called no witness and produced no evidence; its bare denial did not displace the claim. The court therefore found no basis to vary the earlier ex parte judgment and entered judgment for the claimant in the sum claimed, together with costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the claimant

Orders

  • The claimant is awarded Kshs. 439,003.
  • The claimant is awarded the costs of the claim.