Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment

Omwaya v Hygenic Butchery Trading Limited (Civil Appeal 21 of 2019) [2023] KECA 1165 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
6 October 2023
6,353 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a monthly-paid cook was not a casual worker and that employers must pay a mandatory 15% house allowance on top of minimum wage.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal against the quantum of reliefs awarded by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nakuru (M. Mbaru, J.), which had found the appellant cook unfairly terminated without notice, hearing or reasons, and awarded notice pay, pay for days worked, leave pay, underpayments and rest-day pay. The appellant, dissatisfied with the sums, sought higher figures on notice pay, house allowance, underpayment, overtime, rest days, public holidays, gratuity and compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act. The Court of Appeal, per Sichale, Ochieng and Achode, JJA, held the appellant was not a casual employee but a monthly contractual employee protected by Section 45 and entitled to wages-order minimums that cannot be varied by agreement. Applying Section 10(7), the court fixed employment commencement at January 2017 in the absence of any written contract from the respondent. It upheld the trial court's figures on notice pay, underpayment, rest days, leave and pay for days worked, and rejected the overtime claim as unjust enrichment given the shift system, the gratuity claim (no contract or CBA basis, and NSSF contributions attracted the Section 35(6)(d) exclusion), the public holidays claim (not particularised), and the Section 49(1)(c) compensation claim (a discretionary remedy, with no misdirection by the trial judge demonstrated). The appeal succeeded only on the house allowance head, adding Kshs. 1,401.86 to the award. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The decision binds subordinate courts and tribunals on the mandatory nature of house allowance and wages-order terms, the employer's burden where no written contract exists, and the discretionary character of Section 49 remedies.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the appellant was awarded lesser reliefs than he was entitled to

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the appellant and applicable minimum wage

Holding

The appellant was not a casual employee but a monthly contractual employee entitled to the statutory minimum wage of Kshs. 12,386.35 under Legal Notice No. 112 of 2017

Reasoning

Section 2 of the Employment Act defines a casual employee as one paid at the end of each day and engaged for not longer than 24 hours at a time. The appellant was engaged on an oral contract at a monthly salary of Kshs. 12,000, which does not fit that definition. He was therefore protected by Section 45 and entitled to wages-order minimums under Section 48 of the Labour Institutions Act, which may not be varied by agreement.

p. 6
02

Date of commencement of employment

Holding

Employment commenced in January 2017, as the respondent produced no written contract to disprove the appellant's assertion

Reasoning

Relying on Section 10(7) of the Employment Act, where an employer fails to produce a written contract or written particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment falls on the employer. The respondent adduced no proof of an October 2017 commencement date, so the appellant's claim of January 2017 prevailed, extending the service period to 12 months and 7 days.

p. 7
03

House allowance

Holding

The appellant was entitled to a house allowance at 15% of his basic minimum wage, an entitlement the trial court overlooked; the appeal succeeded only on this head

Reasoning

Section 31(1) of the Employment Act obliges an employer to provide reasonable housing or a sufficient housing allowance, and Section 4 of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order fixes the allowance at 15% of the basic minimum wage. The exception in Section 31(2) did not apply because the contract did not consolidate a rent element. The court awarded what the appellant claimed, Kshs. 1,401.86.

p. 9
04

Gratuity and service pay

Holding

The appellant was not entitled to gratuity or service pay

Reasoning

Following H. Young & Company EA Limited v Javan Were Mbango, gratuity is a gratis payment payable only under contract or collective agreement, distinct from severance pay under Section 40. The appellant was not on a fixed-term contract, and since the respondent contributed to the NSSF on his behalf, he fell within the Section 35(6)(d) exclusion to service pay.

p. 9
05

Compensation for unfair termination under Section 49(1)(c)

Holding

The trial court's failure to award compensation under Section 49(1)(c) was a lawful exercise of discretion which the Court of Appeal would not disturb

Reasoning

Section 49 remedies are discretionary, as the use of the word 'may' and the 13 considerations in Section 49(4) make clear, per Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union. On the Mbogo v Shah principle, the appellate court interferes with discretion only where the judge misdirected herself or considered or failed to consider relevant matters; none was shown here.

p. 12
06

Public holidays claim

Holding

The public holidays claim failed for want of particularisation

Reasoning

The right to payment for work on public holidays under Section 10 of the Act requires the employee to outline how the claimed holidays arose, since each year's schedule differs and some holidays depend on gazettement. The appellant did not specify the dates he worked, and there was no proof of work on any particular public holiday, so the trial court's decision was upheld.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee engaged on an oral contract for a monthly salary is not a casual employee and is protected from unfair termination under Section 45 of the Employment Act
  • Where an employer fails to produce a written contract or written particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment lies on the employer
  • Minimum wages and conditions in a wages order constitute terms of employment that may not be varied by agreement
  • An employer must either provide reasonable housing accommodation or pay a house allowance of 15% of the basic minimum wage, as a mandatory statutory requirement
  • Remedies under Section 49 of the Employment Act, including compensation and reinstatement, are discretionary rather than mandatory, to be granted on the peculiar facts of each case having regard to the Section 49(4) considerations
  • The purpose of compensation for unfair dismissal is to make good the employee's loss, not to punish the employer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed only to the extent that the appellant is entitled to a house allowance in the sum of Kshs. 1,401.86 in addition to the reliefs awarded by the trial court
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
majority
majority
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under Rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Relief refused

#

Increased payment in lieu of notice (Kshs. 14,243.15)

Appellant terminated when Legal Notice No. 112 of 2017 was in force; minimum wage of Kshs. 12,386.35 applied

p. 8

Higher underpayment award (Kshs. 17,944)

Entitlement computed on Kshs. 12,386.35 for 12 months, yielding Kshs. 4,636.20

p. 8

Overtime pay

Work shift manuals showed the appellant worked in shifts with a one-hour daily break

p. 9

Gratuity or service pay

Not premised on any law, contract or collective agreement, and NSSF contributions excluded service pay under Section 35(6)(d)

p. 10

Compensation for public holidays beyond the trial award

Appellant did not particularise the specific public holidays worked

p. 10

Compensation for unfair termination under Section 49(1)(c)

Remedy is discretionary; no misdirection by the trial judge was demonstrated

p. 12

Higher rest days compensation (Kshs. 60,374.02)

Entitlement was 52 rest days calculated on monthly salary of Kshs. 12,386.35, matching the trial award

p. 10

Costs

Each party to bear their own costs

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Accordingly, the appeal herein partially succeeds to the extent that the appellant was entitled to a house allowance in the sum of Kshs.1,401.86/- as set out in paragraph 49 of this judgment. Each party to bear their own costs.
p. 12Final orders and costs
the minimum rates of remuneration or conditions of employment established in a wages order constitute a term of employment of any employee to whom the wages order applies and may not be varied by agreement;
p. 5Minimum wages as non-derogable contractual terms
It is trite that payment of house allowance is a statutory requirement couched in mandatory terms.
p. 8Mandatory house allowance
we find that the claim for overtime pay while the appellant worked in shifts would be to seek unjust enrichment.
p. 9Overtime and shift work
Gratuity as correctly enunciated by this Court in Bamburi Cement Ltd vs Farid Aboud Mohammed [2016] eKLR denotes a gratis payment by an employer in appreciation of service.
p. 9Distinction between gratuity and severance pay
the prescribed remedies, including reinstatement are discretionary rather than mandatory remedies, to be granted on the basis of the peculiar facts of each case.
p. 12Discretionary nature of Section 49 remedies

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The house allowance computation is internally inconsistent: 15% of Kshs. 12,386.35 is Kshs. 1,857.95, yet the judgment states the entitlement as Kshs. 22,295.43 and then awards the Kshs. 1,401.86 claimed

minor

The underpayment figure the court says it holds is contradicted by its statement upholding the trial court's finding

minor

Leave pay figure appears as both Kshs. 8,670.40 and Kshs. 8,670.43 in the judgment

minor

Typographical error in the public holidays holding

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omwaya v Hygenic Butchery Trading Limited (Civil Appeal 21 of 2019) [2023] KECA 1165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/1165/eng@2023-10-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.