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

Mangeti v East Afric Terminals Limited (Cause E084 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3072 (KLR) (16 November 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 3072 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3072
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 3072 (KLR)
Decided
16 November 2023
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 DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramM. MBARŨ
The claim is dismissed without merit

Facts

The claimant, Gaitano Ochieng Mangeti, was employed as an operations supervisor by East Afric Terminals Limited. He worked overtime and accrued leave days, but the respondent did not pay the accrued leave days and overtime pay. The claimant resigned in 2021 and was offered a contract to train other employees, but he was only paid once and a lump sum of Ksh 689,104.38.

Issues

  • Whether the respondent owes the claimant Ksh 552,116.74 in terminal dues
  • Whether the respondent's payment of Ksh 136,987.64 was sufficient and explained

Reasoning

The claimant's claim for unpaid terminal dues and overtime pay is dismissed as the respondent paid the claimant his terminal dues and appreciation in full. The claimant's claim for unpaid overtime and leave pay is dismissed as the respondent's payment was sufficient and explained.

Outcome

The claim is dismissed without merit

Orders

  • Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
⚠ 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