[2025] KEELRC 610 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 610 (KLR)

The court found that the 8 Claimants, excluding the 2nd Claimant, had produced clear evidence of their employment on 5-year fixed-term contracts with the 1st Respondent, with explicit clauses entitling them to gratuity at 31% of their basic remuneration for the term served. Their pay slips and contracts corroborated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 610 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Sasai; Applicant: Elizabeth Lolchoki; Applicant: Everline Koyian; Applicant: Joseph Koila; Applicant: George Supeyo; Applicant: Ezekiel Ronoh; Applicant: Cecilia Waupari; Applicant: Johana Cheruyiot; Applicant: Fred Ntekerei; Respondent: Narok County Government; Respondent: Narok County Public Service Board
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E050 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed for 8 Claimants; 2nd Claimant granted leave to prove claim afresh.
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Gratuity Entitlement, Fixed Term Contracts, Public Service Employment, Remedies for Breach, Employment Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Gratuity Entitlement Fixed Term Contracts Public Service Employment Remedies for Breach Employment Benefits

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Sasai

Applicant

Elizabeth Lolchoki

Applicant

Everline Koyian

Applicant

Joseph Koila

Applicant

George Supeyo

Applicant

Ezekiel Ronoh

Applicant

Cecilia Waupari

Applicant

Johana Cheruyiot

Applicant

Fred Ntekerei

Applicant

Narok County Government

Respondent

Narok County Public Service Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to gratuity as per their contracts upon expiry of their fixed-term appointments.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Claimant, Elizabeth Lolchoki, is entitled to gratuity given the lack of clear contractual documentation.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants are entitled to costs and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 8 Claimants, excluding the 2nd Claimant, had produced clear evidence of their employment on 5-year fixed-term contracts with the 1st Respondent, with explicit clauses entitling them to gratuity at 31% of their basic remuneration for the term served. Their pay slips and contracts corroborated the claim for gratuity, and the calculation of Kshs. 4,511,430 per Claimant was mathematically sound. The 2nd Claimant, Elizabeth Lolchoki, did not produce her contract or sufficient evidence to establish her entitlement to gratuity, and the witness for the Claimants could not persuasively testify to her terms. The court therefore granted gratuity to the 8 Claimants and...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed for 8 Claimants; 2nd Claimant granted leave to prove claim afresh.

Orders

  • The Claimants, except Claimant No. 2 Elizabeth Lolchoki, are granted gratuity at Kshs. 4,511,430 each.
  • Costs to the 8 successful Claimants.