- A Labour court in Kisumu upheld an earlier ruling that awarded monetary compensation to the househelp
- She had worked for the appellant from 2018 to 2024, receiving a KSh 4,000 monthly salary
- The judge said that the minimum wage is a prescription of the law and binds all employers of employees
Search option is now available at TUKO! Feel free to search the content on topics/people you enjoy reading about in the top right corner 😉
Elijah Ntongai, an editor at TUKO.co.ke, has over four years of financial, business, and technology research and reporting experience, providing insights into Kenyan, African, and global trends.
Kisumu’s Employment and Labour Relations Court has ordered an employer to pay KSh 569,717 to a househelp who was underpaid for years.
Source: UGC
The judgment, delivered on November 6, 2025, in the case of Ramzan v Misango (Appeal E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3083 (KLR), highlighted the courts’ commitment to enforcing statutory employment rights.
Ramzan had appealed an earlier decision in which the court had awarded the claimant KSh 683,328.
The claimant, who worked diligently over six years, had her employment unfairly terminated without notice or compensation for leave, housing, or NSSF contributions.
How much did Kisumu househelp earn per month?
She had worked as household help from March 2018 to March 2024 at a monthly salary of KSh 4,000.
“It is common ground that the appellant was paying the respondent a monthly salary of KSh 4,000.00 and confirmed the same in court and payment was either in cash or M-Pesa, a fact the respondent did not contest,” read the judgement seen by TUKO.co.ke.
She initially sought KSh 1,265,381.81, citing underpayment, house allowance, leave pay, gratuity, salary in lieu of notice, and compensation.
The employer, Rahim Ibrahim Ramzan, argued that she was a casual employee who absconded.
Why did Kisumu court award the househelp?
After reviewing evidence and testimonies, the court upheld that the claimant was indeed a full-time employee whose termination was procedurally and substantively unfair.
The court found that her work hours, supervision, and employment terms clearly established a consistent employment relationship, which countered the employer’s claim of casual engagement.
While the trial court had awarded a larger sum, the appeal court adjusted the relief, ordering payment for underpayment, house allowance, leave, and two months’ compensation for unfair termination.
Gratuity was set aside, bringing the total award to Ksh 569,717.48.
How did Kisumu court calculate the award?
According to the judge, the respondent was entitled to three years of underpayment calculated under the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Orders of 2018 and 2022, which set the minimum monthly wages at KSh 13,572.90 and KSh 15,201.65, respectively.
This excluded the mandatory 15% house allowance.
The judge said that the trial court had rightly arrived at an underpayment total of KSh 403,259.40 and a house allowance sum of KSh 82,088.91, both of which stand as statutory entitlements.
The appellant also failed to provide evidence that the respondent ever took annual leave, which made the leave claim valid.
Therefore, the employee was owed KSh 31,923.47 for 21 days per year over the three-year period.
Source: Twitter
Judge Jacob Gakeri emphasised that minimum wage laws and statutory rights such as leave and housing allowances are binding on employers, and failure to comply constitutes an offence.
“Minimum wage is a prescription of the law and binds all employers of employees in those categories and the appellant was liable to pay the respondent accordingly,” the judge said.
The ruling reaffirmed that employers must respect labour laws, maintain fair employment practices, and ensure proper procedures during termination, even in domestic work settings.
G4S employee awarded for unfair termination
In other news, a former G4S employee, David Mutisya, was awarded KSh 2 million in compensation after the Employment and Labour Relations Court found that the company had unfairly dismissed him following a biased and procedurally flawed disciplinary process.
Judge Stella Rutto ruled that G4S violated Mutisya’s rights by accusing him of insubordination without substantiating the claims and by subjecting him to a disciplinary panel that included individuals he had previously raised concerns about.
Mutisya, who had served the company for more than 25 years after joining in 1992 and rising to Resourcing Manager, argued that new allegations were introduced during the hearing without notice.
He said he was denied a fair chance to defend himself, and he was barred from accessing the office to appeal his termination.
Proofreading by Asher Omondi, copy editor at TUKO.co.ke.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
