[2020] KEELRC 1224 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1224 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's Human Resource Manual explicitly capped gratuity at six months' salary, regardless of the total years served. The claimant, having served 22 years with a final salary of Kshs.200,000/-, was entitled to a maximum gratuity of Kshs.1,200,000/-. The respondent paid Kshs.1,050,000/-...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1224 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Gachau Murage; Respondent: Guardian Bank Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 943 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Terminal Benefits, Gratuity Calculation, Employment Contracts, Human Resource Policy
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Terminal Benefits Gratuity Calculation Employment Contracts Human Resource Policy

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

Parties

Stephen Gachau Murage

Claimant

Guardian Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to gratuity exceeding the cap of six months' salary as per the respondent's Human Resource Manual.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent correctly calculated and paid the claimant's terminal dues upon resignation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's Human Resource Manual explicitly capped gratuity at six months' salary, regardless of the total years served. The claimant, having served 22 years with a final salary of Kshs.200,000/-, was entitled to a maximum gratuity of Kshs.1,200,000/-. The respondent paid Kshs.1,050,000/- as gratuity and Kshs.200,000/- as final salary, with the net amount after PAYE deductions duly received and acknowledged by the claimant. The court held that the claimant's expectation of a higher gratuity was unfounded, as the contractual cap was clear and binding. Consequently, the claim for additional gratuity lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.