[2021] KEELRC 252 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant made general accusations against the Respondent but failed to provide any supporting evidence for the substantive reliefs sought. In the absence of evidence, the court could not find a basis to grant any of the prayers, including interlocutory injunctions or orders for payment of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 252 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Catherine Luana; Respondent: Peter Gikonyo t/a Afriland Agencies
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E413 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Labour Practices, Withholding of Wages, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Catherine Luana
Applicant
Peter Gikonyo t/a Afriland Agencies
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to interlocutory orders restraining harassment, victimisation, and intimidation by the Respondent.
- 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment of alleged unpaid dues and full monthly remuneration pending determination of the suit.
- 3 Whether the Claimant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant made general accusations against the Respondent but failed to provide any supporting evidence for the substantive reliefs sought. In the absence of evidence, the court could not find a basis to grant any of the prayers, including interlocutory injunctions or orders for payment of alleged dues. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 17th May 2021 is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO E413 OF 2021
CATHERINE LUANA...................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PETER GIKONYO T/A AFRILAND AGENCIES...............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. What is before the Court is the Notice of Motion dated 17th May 2021, by which the Claimant seeks the following reliefs:
a) An order restraining the Respondent, his agents, servants, assigns or anyone acting through him from harassing, in any manner whatsoever, victimizing and/or intimidating the Claimant;
b) An order directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant her unpaid dues totalling Kshs. 400,000;
c) An order directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant her full monthly remuneration of Kshs. 30,000 and all other allowances to which she is entitled;
d) An order restraining the Respondent from terminating the employment of the Claimant on account of the issues raised herein.
2. The Motion is supported by the Claimant’s own affidavit and is based on the following grounds:
a) That the Respondent herein, being the Claimant’s employer, is subjecting the Claimant to unfair labour practices including, unlawfully withholding the Claimant’s monthly remuneration and unexplained downward review of salary without notice or any form of communication and denial of leave;
b) That the Respondent is engaging in the said practices in a discriminatory manner as the Claimant is the only employee that is being subjected to the said practices;
c) That additionally, the Respondent is subjecting the Claimant to sexual harassment at the work place;
d) That any attempt by the Claimant to raise the said issues with the Respondent has resulted to victimisation and intimidation by the Respondent and his agent;
e) That by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimant has been put to considerable hardship, trouble and inconvenience;
f) That unless the Court intervenes and grants the orders sought, the Claimant will continue to be subjected to the said unfair labour practices and will continue to be highly prejudiced;
g) That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought are issued.
3. The Respondent did not respond to the application.
4. In her application, the Claimant makes general accusations against the Respondent. She however does not provide any evidence to support her prayers, which are substantive in nature.
5. In the circumstances, the Court finds no basis upon which any of the prayers could be granted.
6. The Claimant’s Motion therefore fails and is disallowed.
7. I make no order for costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Nyarangi h/b Mr. Okatch for the Claimant
No appearance for the Respondent