Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Cause Number 206 of 2014|
|Parties:||Richard Masasi Okwoyo, Clifford Masongo Onchaga, Charles Matwete Begi & Naftal Momanyi Orando v Coastech Limited & Composol Limited|
|Date Delivered:||04 Mar 2016|
|Court:||Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa|
|Citation:||Richard Masasi Okwoyo & 3 others v Coastech Limited & another  eKLR|
|Court Division:||Employment and Labour Relations|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 206 OF 2014
1. RICHARD MASASI OKWOYO
2. CLIFFORD MASONGO ONCHAGA
3. CHARLES MATWETE BEGI
4. NAFTAL MOMANYI ORANDO …………...………… CLAIMANTS
1. COASTECH LIMITED
2. COMPOSOL LIMITED ……………………………. RESPONDENT
Court Assistant: Benjamin Kombe
Ms. Maina Advocate instructed by Marende Birir & Company Advocates for the Claimants
No appearance for the Respondents
ISSUE IN DISPUTE: TERMINAL DUES AND DAMAGES
[Rule 27  [a] of the Industrial Court [Procedure] Rules 2010]
1. The Claimants filed their Statement of Claim, on the 14th April 2014. They state they were initially employed in various capacities by the 1st Respondent Engineering Company, on diverse years. The 2nd Respondent is a successor Employer, having been registered by the Directors of the 1st Respondent in the year 2012. The Claimants all resigned in 2013, after the Employer failed to meet their monthly salaries. They claim:-
A. RICHARD MASASI OKWOYO
Total ………….. Kshs. 163,000
B. CLIFFORD MASONGO ONCHAGA
Total………… Kshs. 120,000
C. CHARLES MATWETE BEGI
Total ……………….. Kshs. 127,500
D. NAFTAL MOMANYI ORANDO
Total ……………….Kshs. 118,000
The Claimants also pray for damages, costs and any other suitable relief.
2. The Respondents were served through substituted service, but did not enter appearance, file any response, or participate in the proceedings. Counsel for the Claimants adopted the Statement of Claim, Witness Statements, Documents and Submissions on record.
The Court Finds:-
3. It is not disputed that the Claimants were all employed by the two Respondent Companies. They left employment on resignation in September 2013, aggrieved by the non-payment of their monthly dues.
4. In response to demand letters issued by the Claimants’ Advocates, the Respondents acknowledged the Claimants were their Employees. The Respondents’ letter in reply concedes also, that the Claimants were owed ‘some salary arrears.’ The Respondents indicated they were in consultation with the Labour Office, and would amicably settle the dispute. There was no settlement, compelling the Claimants to approach the Court.
4. The material provided by the Claimants is unchallenged. The letters from the Respondents partially admit the claims. The Court is satisfied the Claimants have established their claims satisfactorily. The item stated to be severance pay should however read, and is amended to read ‘service pay.’ IT IS ORDERED:-
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 4th day of March, 2016