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

Oganga DM & 24 others v University of Nairobi (Cause 387 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 12938 (KLR) (13 October 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 12938 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
12938
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 12938 (KLR)
Decided
13 October 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramAN MWAURE
Holding

The court orders the respondent to implement the risk and extraneous allowances correctly and pay the amount due of Ksh 23,160,000.

Facts

Claimants are employees of the University of Nairobi who have been seeking risk and extraneous allowances for 57 months. They claim discrimination as fellow employees are receiving higher allowances.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimants have made out a case for the extraneous allowances claimed.
  2. If the answer to (a) above is in the affirmative, what are the remedies the court should grant.

Reasoning

The court acknowledges the circulars directing risk and extraneous allowances but finds the respondent's refusal to implement them wrongful and unfair.

Outcome

The court orders the respondent to implement the allowances and pay the amount due.

Orders

  • The respondent to implement the risk and extraneous allowances correctly.
  • The respondent to pay the amount due of Ksh 23,160,000.

Remedies

  • A declaration that the refusal to implement the allowances was incorrect.
  • A declaration that the discriminative nature of implementing the allowances is wrongful and unfair.
  • An order directing the respondent to implement the allowances correctly and pay the amount due.
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