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

Onyango v Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd & another (Cause E071 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 659 (KLR) (9 March 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KEELRC 659 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
659
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 659 (KLR)
Decided
9 March 2026
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 previous decisionCoramNZIOKI WA MAKAU
The Claimant is partly successful and awarded Kshs. 250,747.20 as uncontested WIBA claim, Kshs. 15,141.94 for salary for August 2023, Kshs. 18,000 for uniform deposit, costs of the suit, and interest on the sums awarded.

Facts

The Claimant, George Clement Onyango, was employed as a night watchman by the 1st Respondent, Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd, from May 2016 to November 2023. He resigned on September 8, 2023, and claimed unpaid overtime, salary, annual leave, gratuity, and a refund of uniform deposit.

Issues

  • The validity of the re-assessment by the 2nd Respondent (Kisumu County Occupational Safety and Health Officer) dated 28th August 2023
  • The legality of the assessment by the 2nd Respondent dated 6th July 2023
  • Payment of unpaid overtime, salary, annual leave, gratuity, and uniform deposit

Reasoning

The judge found that the Claimant was entitled to the WIBA claim and salary for August 2023, but the other claims were not fully supported by evidence.

Outcome

Partially successful

Orders

  • Award of Kshs. 250,747.20 as uncontested WIBA claim
  • Award of Kshs. 15,141.94 for salary for August 2023
  • Award of Kshs. 18,000 for uniform deposit
  • Award of costs of the suit
  • Award of interest on the sums awarded
⚠ 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