Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 50 (KLR)

Nguli v Southern Sky Safaris Limited & another (Cause E091 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 50 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 January 2025
3,241 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, formerly a tour and reservations manager employed by the 1st respondent from October 2018 until her resignation on 31 July 2023 at a monthly salary of Ksh.100,000, sued for notice pay, service pay, overtime, leave pay, outstation transport allowances and salary deductions made during the Covid-19 pandemic, plus a certificate of service and costs. The respondents admitted the employment but denied all claims, asserting that statutory dues were remitted, the claimant as a manager had no overtime entitlement, she took her leave, she had a fully fueled company vehicle, and the Covid-era 50% salary reduction was consented to in writing. The 2nd respondent, the managing director, also challenged his joinder since the employer was the 1st respondent. The court framed two issues: whether the remedies sought should issue, and costs. It held that service pay was not due as NSSF and NHIF dues were remitted and the contract conferred none; overtime was self-imposed and unapproved and subject to the 12-month continuing-injury rule; leave pay in lieu was not contractually provided for and leave lapses after 18 months; transport allowances were unjustified given the company vehicle; and the Covid salary variation complied with section 10(5) of the Employment Act, the claimant having consented by email. The court noted constructive dismissal principles but held it could only award what was pleaded. The venue objection (Mombasa rather than Malindi) was rejected on access-to-justice grounds. The claim was dismissed with the claimant to meet 25% of the respondents' costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service pay for 4 years

Holding

Not due; statutory dues were remitted and the contract provided no service pay

Reasoning

Section 35(5) and (6) of the Employment Act makes service pay due where the employer has not placed the employee under pension or medical cover or failed to remit statutory dues. The 1st respondent confirmed remittance of NSSF and NHIF dues, and the written contract contained no service pay benefit, so the claim fails on both statutory and contractual grounds.

p. 4
02

Overtime pay

Holding

Not justified; overtime was self-imposed and unapproved

Reasoning

Overtime claims accrue monthly and are subject to the 12-month continuing-injury rule per Ol Pejeta and related Court of Appeal authority. The claimant worked late hours as a personal decision to cope with her work, not at the employer's direction, and never sought formal approval. Where the employer requires overtime, records must be kept and approved; none existed here.

p. 5
03

Leave pay for 2019 and 2020

Holding

Not justified; the claim for leave allowances in lieu of leave is not contractually provided for and leave lapses after 18 months

Reasoning

Under section 28 of the Employment Act annual leave is a legal right but must be taken when due and cannot accumulate beyond 18 months unless the employer approves carry-over. The claimant neither took the claim within the regulatory window nor sought leave allowances instead of leave, a benefit absent from the employment contract.

p. 5
04

Outstation transport allowances

Holding

Not payable; the claimant had a company vehicle for all transport needs

Reasoning

The claimant was allocated a fully fueled company vehicle, KBQ 417A, covering her transport needs. Travelling on her own account to Makueni or Nairobi and then claiming allowances is unjustified, particularly as outstation travel required employer approval which was not obtained. The purpose of the allocated benefit is defeated by opting out of it.

p. 5
05

Covid-era salary deductions

Holding

Lawful and justified; the variation complied with section 10(5) and the claimant consented in writing

Reasoning

Section 10(5) requires any change to contractual terms to be in writing with employee consent. The 2nd respondent emailed a written proposal on 30 April 2020 for a 50% salary cut citing Covid losses; the claimant replied in writing concurring, while requesting rent payment, which the respondents paid. The variation was therefore lawful, though the court noted redundancy under section 40 would have been the lawful alternative to unilateral non-payment.

p. 6
06

Joinder of the 2nd respondent

Holding

The 2nd respondent was not a necessary party as the employer was the 1st respondent

Reasoning

The contract of service was issued by the 1st respondent, not the 2nd respondent. Though the respondents are closely connected, the employment relationship was with the 1st respondent only, making the joinder of the managing director unjustified; the court noted the point should have been raised earlier.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Overtime is a continuing injury and must be filed within 12 months of cessation of the injury or damage
  • Any variation of an employment contract requires a written proposal and the employee's written consent under section 10(5) of the Employment Act
  • Service pay accrues only where the employer has not provided pension/medical cover or remitted statutory dues, or where the contract confers it
  • Annual leave cannot accumulate beyond 18 months absent employer approval under section 28(4)
  • Registry boundaries within a court station should not bar filing for reasons of access to justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.The claimant is to meet 25% of the respondent's costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act, 2007); venue objection from Malindi resolved as registry under Mombasa main station

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nguli v Southern Sky Safaris Limited & another (Cause E091 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 50 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/50/eng@2025-01-23

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