Statement of Claim for a Security Guard Retired Before the Proved Retirement Date Sample

Need a court document? Have an advocate prepare it.

Tell us about your dispute and the court involved. Request a document drafted for your facts, with your evidence and the relief you need.

Ask an advocate to prepare my document

An advocate confirms availability, scope and fees before accepting your matter.

Full text of the document

Educational sample. Replace bracketed fields using your evidence.

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT AT MOMBASA

CM EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS CASE NO [reference]

[CLAIMANT] v [RESPONDENT]

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant is [night guard identity and service address]. The Respondent is [private security employer and address]. Employment commenced in March 1997 and ended in December 2020 under a retirement notice. The actual filing date, designated court jurisdiction, limitation basis and related proceedings are [complete].

2. The Claimant date of birth is [date proved by authentic record], with the fifty-fifth birthday falling in July 2021 on the source facts. The retirement notice was served on [proved date] and required service to end on [date]. The exact document is [reference]. Any inconsistent date in a summary is resolved from the original notice.

3. The employment contract, applicable retirement policy and protective-security wage order are [identify]. The Claimant was willing and able to continue serving until the proved retirement date. Particulars of the challenged early retirement are the premature effective date, unsupported age calculation and [any other evidenced breach].

4. The remuneration claimed for the unserved period uses the proved pay components and precise period at [schedule]. Compensation, contractual wage loss and notice pay are pleaded on their separate legal bases, with overlapping recovery identified. No public-service rule is assumed to govern this private contract.

5. Gratuity is claimed under the applicable protective-security provision for full completed service years, using the legally appropriate wage base. The Claimant acknowledges KSh 204,942 already paid as terminal dues on the source facts and gives its allocation at [records]. The payment is credited against overlapping heads.

6. Any overtime or holiday head retained is particularised by work date, hours, lawful rate, payment and limitation basis. Unsupported decades-long totals are not claimed. The Claimant seeks the proved early-retirement remedy, unpaid balance of gratuity, lawful interest, costs and any appropriate certificate-of-service relief.

DATED at [place] on [date]. Signed [party or advocate]. DRAWN AND FILED BY [name and address for service]. TO BE SERVED UPON [each affected person and address].

Need a court document? Have an advocate prepare it.

Tell us about your dispute and the court involved. Request a document drafted for your facts, with your evidence and the relief you need.

Ask an advocate to prepare my document

An advocate confirms availability, scope and fees before accepting your matter.

Educational reconstruction from a reported decision. Newly drafted sample, not an original filing or a matter handled by our team. Identifying details are replaced with bracketed fields. Verify the facts, law, jurisdiction and court directions before use.

Use and evidence notes

Complete identities, authority, material facts, jurisdiction, related litigation, limitation, each remedy and exact amounts. Use the required verifying affidavit, witness statements, list and copies of genuine documents. Identify the actual competent court and applicable procedure; a trial claim is different from an appeal. Historical employment dates do not authorise a fresh time-barred action. Fresh drafting structure based on a concluded historical dispute. Verify section 90 limitation; these 1997–2020 facts do not permit a fresh claim now. File before the properly designated and competent trial court with the required claim pack. Verify the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 and 2025 amendments, or the applicable designated subordinate-court procedure, and current directions. Assess section 90 for each employment claim.

Supporting material: [date]; [author or custodian]; [description]; [bundle page]; [authenticating witness]; [admission or permission]. Attach genuine records only. This public specimen contains no exhibits, signatures, personal identifiers or sworn declaration.

Source facts and limits of the decision

A night guard worked from March 1997 until December 2020. He said a retirement notice ended service roughly six months before his fifty-fifth birthday. The private employer invoked retirement policy but produced no defining contract or policy, and did not contest the actual birth date. The guard admitted receipt of KSh 204,942. Claims for decades of overtime and public holidays lacked particulars.

The ELRC upheld relief for early retirement but recalculated gratuity for 23 full years at the stated KSh 15,142 wage base, giving KSh 174,133. The operative paragraph records six-month compensation of KSh 154,244.60 and requires both heads to be reduced by the KSh 204,942 already received. Earlier passages state KSh 154,224.60, an internal figure discrepancy that must be checked against the authenticated decree. Overtime and holiday claims were declined. Each party bore its appeal costs.

Public-sector retirement provisions do not automatically define a private employee retirement age. Establish the contract, applicable policy or industry wage order and actual birth date. The judgment applied protective-security gratuity of fifteen days pay per full year, not an unproved 24 years. It distinguished a particularised timely work-hours claim from exaggerated historic totals. Section 90 limitation must be assessed against the actual accrual and cessation dates.

Read the original reported decision: [2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR) — 2 October 2025

The original decision may identify participants. The specimen replaces their identifying details. The reproduced primary judicial text, reasons and operative orders were checked against the neutral citation and Mombasa proceeding heading. These are newly drafted educational reconstructions, not original signed pleadings. A proposed procedural correction is labelled separately from what was actually filed. No subsequent-order or licensed-advocate review is claimed; check the current law, authentic file and directions before use.