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

James Okello Ouma & 4 others v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd [2018] KEELRC 1761 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1761 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1761
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1761 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a decision on terminal duesCoramRadido Stephen
Holding

The Court finds that the Claimants were underpaid severance pay and orders the Respondent to pay the underpayments.

Facts

The Claimants were employed by Kenya Railways Corporation and later transferred to Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd. They were informed of retrenchment and were paid severance pay based on a formula. The Claimants sued for higher severance pay.

Issues

  1. whether the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimants terminal dues

Reasoning

The Court held that the Claimants were transferred employees and thus entitled to severance pay at the same rate as employees of the Kenya Railways Corporation who had been retrenched by 7 April 2006. The Respondent's contention that the Agreement did not apply to the Claimants was rejected.

Outcome

The Court ordered the Respondent to pay the underpayments to the Claimants.

Orders

  • The Respondent to pay the underpayments to the Claimants as follows: James Okello Ouma Kshs 1,224,300/-, Yusuf Onyango Obonyo Kshs 387,567/-, David Harambe Otambo Kshs 828,360/-, Patrick Gekonge Maraburi Kshs 830,772/-, Romanus Ohanga Kshs 464,634/-

Remedies

  • The Claimants to have costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act
  • Agreement between Kenya Railways Corporation, the Respondent, and the Government of Kenya
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case