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

Mwinzi v Management University of Africa (Cause 1743 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 3992 (KLR) (10 June 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 3992 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3992
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 3992 (KLR)
Decided
10 June 2022
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant v RespondentCoramJAMES RIKA
The Court orders the Respondent to pay the Claimant leave allowance of Kshs. 10,928 and salary arrears of Kshs. 81,339, totaling Kshs. 92,267.

Facts

Claimant Christopher Mwinzi was employed as a Security Officer by Management University of Africa. He resigned on June 9, 2016, and was paid his last salary of Kshs. 85,000. The University initially agreed to pay his terminal benefits but later declined. The Claimant also claimed withheld allowances and salary arrears.

Issues

  • Unpaid salary and benefits for June 2016
  • Unpaid leave allowance for 2016 and 2017
  • Unpaid extraneous allowance for May and June 2016
  • Pension contribution disputes

Reasoning

The Court found that the Respondent had unilaterally altered the Claimant's contract, including pension contributions, and failed to pay the Claimant's terminal benefits and withheld allowances.

Outcome

Claimant wins

Orders

  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant leave allowance of Kshs. 10,928 and salary arrears of Kshs. 81,339
  • Costs to the Claimant
  • Interest allowed at court rates from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full

Remedies

  • Unpaid salary and benefits for June 2016
  • Unpaid leave allowance for 2016 and 2017
  • Unpaid extraneous allowance for May and June 2016
  • Pension contribution disputes
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case