Kigaaru v Ministry of Works Sports Club (Cause E759 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 768 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer was ordered to pay a former chef nearly Kshs 490,000 because it could not undo a gratuity figure it had already put in writing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent is bound to pay gratuity as calculated in its letter of 18th December 2017 at 26 days per year worked (Kshs 334,533.30) or at the revised 20-day rate (Kshs 253,808.20)
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment for accumulated leave and off days (Kshs 53,930)
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to unpaid overtime (Kshs 11,625)
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of loan deductions of Kshs 5,000 monthly (total Kshs 90,000) made but not remitted to Welfare Shares
- 5.Whether the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of PAYE and NHIF deductions allegedly not remitted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent could reduce the gratuity from the 26-day to the 20-day calculation after communicating the 26-day figure
The court held the Respondent bound by its letter of 18th December 2017 and awarded gratuity of Kshs 334,533.30
The Respondent admitted owing gratuity but contended it should be recalculated at 20 days per year because the Claimant was not a civil servant. The court found no evidence that the original letter of 18th December 2017 was altered or revoked, and its own witness admitted in cross-examination that no formal revocation had been made. The communicated gratuity therefore remained payable.
Whether leave, off-day and overtime dues were proved
The court found these payable, having been verified from the Respondent's own documents (memos confirming 84 accrued leave days at Kshs 53,930 and overtime of Kshs 11,625)
The memos confirming overtime and accrued leave originated from the Respondent, which did not dispute their authenticity. The Respondent's assertion that the contract did not provide for overtime could not displace its own documents verifying the sums. The court accordingly awarded leave dues and overtime pay in the amounts confirmed by the memos.
Whether welfare loan deductions of Kshs 90,000 not remitted are refundable
The court held the Claimant entitled to a refund of the Kshs 90,000 deducted but not remitted
The Respondent deducted Kshs 5,000 monthly from salary towards a Welfare Shares loan but never remitted the amounts. The Respondent claimed payments were made by cheque through Absa Bank but produced no bank statement or copies of cheques to substantiate this. Unremitted salary deductions must be refunded to the employee.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer has calculated and communicated a gratuity entitlement and never formally revoked that communication, it remains bound to pay the amount as stated
- An employer who deducts loan repayments from salary but fails to remit them must refund the amounts to the employee
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimant gratuity of Kshs 334,533.30
- 2.The Respondent to pay the Claimant leave dues of Kshs 53,938
- 3.The Respondent to pay the Claimant overtime pay of Kshs 11,625
- 4.The Respondent to refund loan deductions made and not remitted of Kshs 90,000
- 5.Total award of Kshs 490,088.30 payable in total as PAYE was already deducted
- 6.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 7.Interest on the award at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over a memorandum of claim for terminal dues
Relief refused
#Claim for Kshs 100,000 deducted as PAYE but not remitted to KRA
The Respondent reimbursed Kshs 92,706 in 2023 for statutory deductions not remitted and the Claimant abandoned that claim
Reimbursement of money never remitted to NHIF
The court made no order on the NHIF reimbursement prayer despite it being sought; the final award covers only gratuity, leave dues, overtime and loan deductions
A duly executed certificate of service
The prayer was not addressed or granted in the judgment
Costs
The Respondent will pay costs of the suit and interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
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.
The total owed to the claimant is therefore: 1. Gratuity Kshs 334,533.30/- 2. Leave dues Kshs 53,938/- 3. Overtime pay kshs 11,625/- 4. Loan deductions made and not remitted kshs 90,000/- Total Kshs 490,088.3/-
The respondent will also pay costs and interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
There is no evidence the original letter was altered or changed as the respondents are contesting. The gratuity remains unpaid to date and is therefore payable.
The overtime pay is also payable the same having been verified from the respondents own documents.
Issues in the judgment
#Arithmetic and figure inconsistencies: the leave dues figure is stated as Kshs 53,930 in the claim and memos but Kshs 53,938 in the court's computation, and the itemised totals (334,533.30 + 53,938 + 11,625 + 90,000) do not sum to the stated total of Kshs 490,088.3; further, the memorandum of claim totals the claim at Kshs 590,088.30 which is inconsistent with both figures
The witness statement states the Claimant was employed 'until 25th September 2022' when the retirement letter was issued, conflicting with the memorandum of claim which dates the retirement notice to 25th September 2017
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kigaaru v Ministry of Works Sports Club (Cause E759 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 768 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/768/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.