[2018] KEELRC 1619 (KLR)
The court found that although clause 8 of the claimant's employment contract appeared unequivocal regarding severance pay, the respondent had raised serious allegations of deceit or fraud concerning its validity. Such allegations, if substantiated, could vitiate the contract. The court held that these issues could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1619 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alexander Irungu Wanjiru; Respondent: The Registered Trustees of The Sisters of Mercy
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 211 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Severance Pay Pending Main Claim
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Severance Pay, Employment Contracts, Summary Judgment, Fraud Allegations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alexander Irungu Wanjiru
Applicant
The Registered Trustees of The Sisters of Mercy
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Severance Pay Pending Main Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to severance pay pending the hearing and determination of the main claim.
- 2 Whether clause 8 of the employment contract is valid in light of allegations of deceit or fraud.
- 3 Whether summary judgment can be granted where there are serious allegations of fraud and conflicting affidavit evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although clause 8 of the claimant's employment contract appeared unequivocal regarding severance pay, the respondent had raised serious allegations of deceit or fraud concerning its validity. Such allegations, if substantiated, could vitiate the contract. The court held that these issues could not be resolved through affidavit evidence in an interlocutory application but required a full trial with oral evidence and cross-examination. Therefore, the application for severance pay pending the main claim was dismissed to allow the substantive issues to be determined at trial.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 8th March, 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 211 OF 2016
ALEXANDER IRUNGU WANJIRU.........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF
THE SISTERS OF MERCY..................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a motion dated 8th March, 2017 the claimant sought orders among others that respondent be ordered to pay the claimant his severance pay amounting to Kshs 7,984,668 being equivalent to twelve months salary at the time of termination as provided in the contract of employment pending the hearing and determination of the main claim.
2. This application is founded on clause 8 of the claimants contract dated 15th July, 2017 which provided that;
“One month’s notice of intention to terminate service must be given in writing by either party. If the employer terminates employment before the expiry of the contract a severance payment equivalent to at least twelve (12) monthly salary calculated on your monthly salary at the time of termination is to be paid and shall fall due for payment on the day after leaving employment. In turn you may forfeit your salary for the period by which your notice takes short of one calendar month”.
This cause is without prejudice to the management’s right to terminate the employment summarily.
3. In support of this prayer counsel for the claimant, Mr Wesonga submitted that the payment of severance pay was not pegged on lawfulness of the termination or any other factor. Counsel contended that the respondent having a superior bargaining power would have inserted a rider to clause 8.
4. Mr Ciuri for the respondent on his part submitted that it was inept or inequitable for the applicant to seek determination of the suit in piecemeal by interlocutory applications. This according to counsel was a waste of invaluable judicial time. Counsel further submitted that the respondent’s statement of response dated 22nd February, 2017 impugned the validity of clause 8 of the applicant’s contract of employment and pleaded particulars of deceit or fraud.
5. The issue of validity of clause 8 of the applicant’s contract of employment has therefore been joined. A trial with cross-examination of witnesses is therefore necessary to establish the truth or falsity of the alleged particulars of deceit or fraud. Mr Ciuri therefore submitted that the court cannot grant the motion for summary judgement on conflicting affidavits evidence when serious allegations of deceit or fraud have been pleaded. In support counsel relied on the Court of Appeal decisions in Westmount Kenya Ltd Vs Fredrick & Another [2003] KLR 357 where the court held that it was unusual to enter summary judgement when serious allegations of fraud and other wrong doings are made such issues can only be decided during a proper trial and not on conflicting affidavits.
6. The court has carefully reviewed the pleadings herein particularly at paragraph 27 of the memorandum of claim and response thereto made at paragraph 17 of the memorandum of response. Whereas the claimant’s contract of employment at clause 8 appears on the face of it as unequivocal on payment of severance pay, the respondent has made serious allegations over its validity. As a court of law, I need to get to the root of these allegations before I can make any judgement. This would require oral evidence and cross-examination of the claimant over the said clause 8 as well as respondent’s witnesses over the same.
7. Whereas the contract was on the face of it binding on the parties, the allegations of the existence of factors that would ordinarily vitiate a contract are serious and must be inquired into if the court is to do justice in the circumstances. This as I have observed cannot happen through an interlocutory application where evidence is adduced by way of affidavits.
8. The court will in the circumstances dismiss with costs the application dated 8th March, 2017.
9. It is ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 6th day of July, 2018
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of July, 2018
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of:-
..................................for the Claimant
..................................for the Respondent