[2019] KEELRC 206 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the Claimants were casual employees, and the documentary evidence presented by the Respondent was of no probative value. The Respondent's absence at trial and failure to cross-examine the Claimants' witness or call any witnesses further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 206 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Baya Nyonga Baya; Applicant: Dall Mohammed Dalu; Applicant: Joseph Mrichwa; Applicant: Salimu Ismail Benjoma; Applicant: Salim Mohamed Mgandi; Respondent: Steel Makers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 112 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Claimants.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Termination, Casual Employment, Compensation for Dismissal, Service Pay, Leave Entitlements
- 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
Baya Nyonga Baya
Applicant
Dall Mohammed Dalu
Applicant
Joseph Mrichwa
Applicant
Salimu Ismail Benjoma
Applicant
Salim Mohamed Mgandi
Applicant
Steel Makers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimants were unlawfully and unfairly terminated from employment.
- 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought including compensation, notice pay, leave pay, service pay, certificates of service, costs, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the Claimants were casual employees, and the documentary evidence presented by the Respondent was of no probative value. The Respondent's absence at trial and failure to cross-examine the Claimants' witness or call any witnesses further weakened its case. The court held that the Claimants' employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated. The Claimants were entitled to compensation based on their respective periods of service, one month's salary in lieu of notice, leave pay, and service pay. The court awarded twelve months' salary as compensation to the 1st to 4th Claimants and four months' salary to the 5th...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Claimants.
Orders
- The Respondent shall pay the 1st Claimant KES 439,338 as compensation, notice pay, leave pay, and service pay.
- The Respondent shall pay the 2nd Claimant KES 350,979 as compensation, notice pay, leave pay, and service pay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
109 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 112 OF 2015
BAYA NYONGA BAYA…………….....…………………………1ST CLAIMANT
DALL MOHAMMED DALU………...…………………………2ND CLAIMANT
JOSEPH MRICHWA……………....……………………………3RD CLAIMANT
SALIMU ISMAIL BENJOMA………….………………………4TH CLAIMANT
SALIM MOHAMED MGANDI…….......………………………5TH CLAIMANT
JOHN CHOMBA GACHOKI…...........………………………….6TH CLAIMANT
VS
STEEL MAKERS LIMITED………..........………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. The Claimants’ claim arises out of respective employment relationships between them and the Respondent.
2. The claim is documented by a Memorandum of Claim dated 2nd March 2015 and filed in court on 6th March 2015.
3. The Respondent filed a Response on 5th June 2015 but did not attend the trial in spite of due service. The 1st Claimant, Baya Nyonga Baya testified on his own behalf and on behalf of his co-claimants.
The Claimants’ Case
4. The Claimants state that they were employed by the Respondent on diverse dates between 1995 and 2013. They worked until 15th December 2014, when their employment was terminated.
5. The 1st, 2nd and 5th Claimants aver that they were employed as general workers and that at the time of termination, they were working as tongs men earning a daily wage of Kshs. 472. The 3rd and 4th Claimants state that they worked as general workers also earning a daily rate of Kshs. 472.
6. The 6th Claimant, John Chomba Gachoki withdrew his claim by notice dated 2nd June 2015.
7. Regarding the circumstances leading to the termination of their employment, the Claimants state that on 15th December 2014, they were informed not to report to work the following day as their services were no longer required. They were further told that since they had commenced legal proceedings against the Respondent on account of injuries sustained at work, the Respondent had no faith in them.
8. The Claimants’ case is that the termination of their employment was unlawful and unfair. They add that they were not paid their accrued dues. Their particular claims are as follows:
1st Claimant: Baya Nyonga Baya
a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………Kshs. 12,272
b) Leave pay for 19 years……………………………………………………188,328
c) Years of service………………………………………………………………134,520
d) 12 months’ salary in compensation………………………………..147,264
2nd Claimant: Dall Mohamed Dalu
a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………Kshs. 12,272
b) Leave pay for 13 years……………………………………………………128,856
c) Years of service………………………………………………………………..92,040
d) 12 months’ salary in compensation………………………………..147,264
3rd Claimant: Joseph Mrichwa
a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………Kshs. 12,272
b) Leave pay for 11 years……………………………………………………109,032
c) Years of service………………………………………………………………..77,880
d) 12 months’ salary in compensation………………………………..147,264
4th Claimant: Salimu Ismail Benjoma
a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………Kshs. 12,272
b) Leave pay for 11 years……………………………………………………109,032
c) Years of service………………………………………………………………..77,880
d) 12 months’ salary in compensation………………………………..147,264
5th Claimant: Salim Mohamed Mgandi
a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………Kshs. 12,272
b) Leave pay for 2 years……………………………………………………….19,824
c) Years of service………………………………………………………………..14,160
d) 12 months’ salary in compensation………………………………..147,264
9. The Claimants further ask for certificates of service as well as costs plus interest.
The Respondent’s Case
10. In its Response dated 5th June 2015 and filed in court on the same date, the Respondent states that the Claimants had from time to time been employed as casual workers.
11. The Respondent however denies having employed the Claimants as set out in the Memorandum of Claim. The Respondent further denies terminating the Claimants’ employment on 15th December 2014, on account of work injury claims filed by the Claimants.
Findings and Determination
12. There are two (2) issues for determination in this case:
a) Whether the Claimants have made out a case of unlawful termination;
b) Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.
Unlawful Termination?
13. By its Response dated 5th June 2015, the Respondent makes an admission that the Claimants worked for it at some point but on casual basis.
14. At paragraph 6 of the Response, the Respondent pleads as follows:
“the Respondent states that it has never terminated the employment of the claimants and/or refused to employ them as casual workers save on days when there are no materials for production.”
15. The Respondent then goes ahead to make a general denial of the Claimants’ claim.
16. The Respondent did not seize the opportunity to cross examine the Claimants’ witness and did not call any witness. The Court is therefore left to glean the line of defence from the Response and supporting documents.
17. My understanding of the Respondent’s defence is that the Claimants were casual employees employed on need basis. Section 2 of the Employment Act defines a casual employee in the following terms:
“a person the terms of whose engagement provide for his payment at the end of each day and who is not engaged for a longer period than twenty four hours at a time.”
18. The Respondent did not present any credible evidence to support its assertion that the Claimants were casual employees. In this regard, the Court found the unsigned and unexplained sheets bearing the Claimants names to be of nil probative value.
19. In the result, the Respondent’s entire defence collapses, the corollary being a finding that the Claimants’ employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated.
Remedies
20. Pursuant to the foregoing findings, the Claimants are entitled to compensation. Taking into account the respective periods of service, I award twelve (12) months’ salary to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants and four (4) months’ salary to the 5th Claimant in compensation.
21. I further award each Claimant one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice.
22. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the claims for leave pay and service pay are allowed.
23. I therefore enter judgment in favour of the Claimants as follows:
1st Claimant: Baya Nyonga Baya
a) 12 months’ salary in compensation……………………………….Kshs.147,264
b) 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice…………………………………………..…….12,272
c) Leave pay for 19 years (12,272/30x21x19) ……………………………163,218
d) Service pay for 19 years (12,272/30x15x19) .…………………………116,584
Total……………………………………………………………………………439,338
2nd Claimant: Dall Mohamed Dalu
a) 12 months’ salary in compensation……………………………….Kshs.147,264
b) 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………………………..….12,272
c) Leave pay for 13 years (12,272/30x21x13) ……………………………111,675
d) Service pay for 13 years (12,272/30x15x13) .…………………………..79,768
Total……………………………………………………………………………350,979
3rd Claimant: Joseph Mrichwa
a) 12 months’ salary in compensation……………………………….Kshs.147,264
b) 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………………………..….12,272
c) Leave pay for 11 years (12,272/30x21x11) ………………………………94,494
d) Service pay for 11 years (12,272/30x15x11) .…………………………..67,496
Total……………………………………………………………………………321,526
4th Claimant: Salimu Ismail Benjoma
a) 12 months’ salary in compensation……………………………….Kshs.147,264
b) 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………………………..….12,272
c) Leave pay for 11 years (12,272/30x21x11) ……………………………......…94,494
d) Service pay for 11 years (12,272/30x15x11) .…………………………...........67,496
Total……………………………………………………………….......…………….321,526
5th Claimant: Salim Mohamed Mgandi
a) 4 months’ salary in compensation……………………………….Kshs….49,088
b) 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice……………………………………………..12,272
c) Leave pay for 2 years (12,272/30x21x2) ……………………………….…17,181
d) Service pay for 2 years (12,272/30x15x2) .……………………………….12,272
Total……………………………………………………………………………....90,813
24. These amounts will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
25. The Claimants are also entitled to certificates of service plus costs of the case.
26. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Miss Mbithe for the Claimants
No appearance for the Respondent