SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Abdul Majid Mohammed & 60 others v Maersk Kenya Limited [2015] KEELRC 1071 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1071 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1071
Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1071 (KLR)
Decided
13 May 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeIndustrial DisputePostureClaim filed by 61 employees against Maersk Kenya Limited for terminal benefitsCoramJames Rika
Holding

The Court orders Maersk Kenya Limited to pay 1 month salary in lieu of notice, 21 days' salary for each completed year of service as annual leave pay, 0.5 times the normal hourly rate for overtime work done on Public Holidays, and service pay at 15 days' salary for each completed year of service to each of the 61 claimants.

Facts

61 employees were employed by Maersk Kenya Limited as Tally Clerks, Bay Clerks, Yard Clerks, Chief Tally Clerks, Supervisors, and Bay Planners. They were notified on 1st June 2011 that their employment would cease and they would work for Spica Marine Inspections Limited. The employees received tokens of appreciation but were not satisfied.

Issues

  1. termination of employment
  2. terminal benefits

Reasoning

The Court found that the tokens paid were not in accordance with the law and did not meet the minimum statutory standards for recognizing and rewarding years of service. The Court also rejected the Respondent's argument on limitation of time.

Outcome

In favor of the claimants

Orders

  • 1 month salary in lieu of notice
  • 21 days' salary for each completed year of service as annual leave pay
  • 0.5 times the normal hourly rate for overtime work done on Public Holidays
  • service pay at 15 days' salary for each completed year of service

Remedies

  • costs to the claimants

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act 2007
  • Industrial Court [Procedure] Rules 2010
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case