Komu & 2 others v RRR Kenya Limited (Cause E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 975 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded three employees millions in unpaid salaries with interest and costs, but refused general damages because they weren't properly claimed.
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 breached the Claimants' employment contracts by failing to pay their salaries
- 2.Whether the Claimants are entitled to the claimed salary arrears
- 3.Whether general damages are awardable for breach of employment contracts
- 4.Whether the Claimants are entitled to costs and interest
Key legal issues
#Whether non-payment of salaries breached the employment contracts
Yes - the Respondent breached the contracts of employment by failing to pay salaries when due, contrary to section 17 of the Employment Act
The Claimants were employees of the Respondent engaged as project manager and project geologists. Despite service, the Respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, and the matter proceeded undefended. The Claimants testified and adopted documentary bundles proving the non-payment of salaries over the pleaded periods, satisfying the court that the salaries fell due and remained unpaid, contrary to the Employment Act's protection of wages.
Whether general damages for breach of contract and financial hardship are recoverable
No - general damages are not awardable for breach of employment contracts; the statutory remedy is compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act, which was not pleaded
The court held that in employment matters, general damages do not lie for breach of contractual obligations. The Employment Act instead provides compensation under section 49. Since the Claimants did not plead compensation under that section, they could not recover under it, so the general damages claim failed notwithstanding the proven breach.
Legal principles established
#- General damages are not awardable for breach of employment contracts; the remedy is statutory compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act, which must be pleaded.
- Non-payment of salary amounts to breach of the employment contract and an unfair labour practice.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the 1st Claimant of Kshs. 2,400,000/- as unpaid salary
- 2.Judgment for the 2nd Claimant of Kshs. 2,200,000/- as unpaid salary
- 3.Judgment for the 3rd Claimant of Kshs. 2,200,000/- as unpaid salary
- 4.Interest at court rates on the sums above from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Article 41(2) of the Constitution invoked by Claimants)
Relief refused
#General damages for breach of contract and financial hardship
General damages are not awardable for breach of employment contracts; the Employment Act provides compensation under section 49, which was not pleaded
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimants
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 law in our realm concerning employment contracts is that general damages are not awardable for breach of contract or breach of contractual obligations in employment. Instead, the Employment Act provides for compensation under section 49.
The Court returns that the Respondent breached the contracts of employment by refusing to pay the salaries of the Claimants.
a. The 1st Claimant – Kshs. 2,400,000/- as unpaid salary b. The 2nd Claimant – Kshs. 2,200,000/- as unpaid salary. c. The 3rd Claimant – Kshs. 2,200,000/- as unpaid salary. d. Interest at court rates on the sums in a), b) and c) above from the date of judgment till payment in full. e. Costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the individual Claimants and the Respondent are not stated in the judgment extract; parties are identified only by role
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Komu & 2 others v RRR Kenya Limited (Cause E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 975 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/975/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.