Okudho v SS Mehta & Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2823 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a safety officer unpaid storekeeper wages and notice pay, but most claims failed due to time limits and weak evidence.
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 Claimant was engaged as an Environmental Health and Safety Officer
- 2.Whether the Respondent lawfully engaged and compensated the Claimant for responsibilities outside his contract
- 3.Whether the Claimant's termination by way of redundancy was unfair and unlawful
- 4.Whether the Claimant was adequately compensated at the point of termination
- 5.What remedies are available
Key legal issues
#Nature of the termination
The termination was by mutual agreement, not redundancy; section 40 of the Employment Act was inapplicable
The termination letter stated the contract was terminated effective 9th June 2023 on account of completion of the project, described the termination as 'mutually agreed', and annexed final dues computation. The court held this was not a redundancy despite the Claimant's attempt to read section 40 requirements into the letter, and found the termination regular.
Additional storekeeper duties and pay
Claimant proved he combined two roles in the latter part of service and was entitled to storekeeper wages under the applicable Regulation of Wages
Although the pleadings claimed 10 years of unpaid wages, the court applied limitation rules and awarded only the latter period. It found the Claimant combined the roles of safety officer and storekeeper, and, using the applicable Regulation of Wages (General) Order for 'other areas' (Gilgil), computed unpaid wages of Kshs. 16,591.44 monthly, totaling Kshs. 199,097.28 for a year.
Notice pay
Entitled to one month's wage in lieu of notice, Kshs. 51,591.44
The termination took effect immediately without notice. The court held the Claimant entitled to recompense equivalent to a monthly wage as payment in lieu of notice, computed at Kshs. 51,591.44.
Legal principles established
#- Continuing wrongs such as non-payment of salary are subject to a one-year limitation period for employment claims
- Termination effective immediately without notice entitles an employee to payment in lieu of notice
Court orders
#- 1.Unpaid wages of Kshs. 199,097.28
- 2.Notice pay of Kshs. 51,591.44
- 3.Costs of the suit limited to the sums awarded in (i) and (ii)
- 4.Interest at court rates on the awarded sums from the date of judgment till payment in full
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 and Labour Institutions Act (employment dispute)
Relief refused
#Unpaid salary as materials storekeeper for 10 years
Employment claims are subject to limitation; continuing wrongs limited to one year
Severance/gratuity pay
No evidence of a CBA or contract provision for gratuity
12 months' compensation for unfair termination
Termination was found to be by mutual agreement, not redundancy; it was regular
Payment in lieu of 7 days leave and 17.5 statutory leave days
Claimant failed to produce evidence of company policy or entitlement
Costs
Costs of the suit limited to the sums awarded (unpaid wages and notice pay), with interest at court rates on those sums from the date of judgment till payment in full.
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.
This is not a redundancy and despite the Claimant trying to read into the letter the requirements of section 40 of the Employment Act, that section was not applicable to his termination.
Where a cause of action accrues, it is limited to 3 years for ordinary matters and for continuing wrongs (payment of salary being one of them) to one year.
i. Unpaid wages – Kshs. 199,097.28. ii. Notice pay – Kshs. 51,591.44
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant pleaded severance pay but the court's judgment refers to and dismisses a claim for 'gratuity', a term not used in the reliefs sought
Reliefs in the Memorandum of Claim total Kshs. 2,688,176/- but the itemised figures appear not to sum exactly to that total; the court does not address the discrepancy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okudho v SS Mehta & Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 11th July 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2823/eng@2025-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.