[2019] KEELRC 2514 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 2514 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding underpayment, non-payment of house allowance, and overtime. While an agreement at the Ministry of Labour was acknowledged, the Claimants did not provide evidence that it was breached or not implemented. There was no documentary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 2514 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Chege Jeremiah & 9 Others; Defendant: Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 284,282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289 & 290 (Consolidated) of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claims dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Underpayment of Wages, Fixed Term Contracts, Housing Allowance, Overtime Pay, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Underpayment of Wages Fixed Term Contracts Housing Allowance Overtime Pay Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chege Jeremiah & 9 Others

Plaintiff

Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants were unfairly terminated from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants were underpaid or denied lawful dues including house allowance and overtime.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent breached any agreement reached at the Ministry of Labour regarding payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding underpayment, non-payment of house allowance, and overtime. While an agreement at the Ministry of Labour was acknowledged, the Claimants did not provide evidence that it was breached or not implemented. There was no documentary proof, such as payslips or follow-up correspondence, to substantiate their claims. The Respondent's assertion that the Claimants were employed on fixed-term contracts, which expired upon completion of the project or relevant sections, was not effectively challenged. The court concluded that the Claimants were not entitled to automatic contract extensions or further dues, and that...

Court Disposition

claims dismissed

Orders

  • The consolidated claims are dismissed for want of proof.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.