[1996] KECA 96 (KLR)
The court held that the appellant had received all terminal dues and benefits stipulated under his contract of employment and the respondent's retirement benefit scheme. The court found no basis for awarding general damages for dismissal, as the law does not provide for such damages in cases where the employee has...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] KECA 96 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Clement J. Macharia; Respondent: K. G. G. C. U. Ltd (Kenya Grain Growers Co-operative Union Limited)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 66 or 19 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Wrongful Dismissal, Terminal Benefits, Employment Contracts, General Damages, Employee 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
Clement J. Macharia
Appellant
K. G. G. C. U. Ltd (Kenya Grain Growers Co-operative Union Limited)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was wrongfully dismissed from employment by the respondent.
- 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to any further benefits or general damages beyond what was paid upon termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant had received all terminal dues and benefits stipulated under his contract of employment and the respondent's retirement benefit scheme. The court found no basis for awarding general damages for dismissal, as the law does not provide for such damages in cases where the employee has been paid all contractual entitlements. The evidence of the respondent's witness regarding the payment of dues was credible and accepted over the appellant's assertions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant was not entitled to any further compensation.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Appeal 66 or 1995
CLEMENT J. MACHARIA …………………….....................................…………………..APPELLANT
AND
K. G. G. C. U. LTD ………………...............................………………………………….RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Ruling and Orders of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr. Justice D. M. Rimita) dated 29th November, 1993
IN
H. C. C. C. NO. 221 OF 1990
**********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was, at all material times, employed by the respondent, Kenya Grain Growers Co-operative Union Limited (K.G.G.C.U.). He was employed on 4th April, 1962 at a basic salary of some K.Shs.300/= per month which salary was increased from time to time. The employment, to begin with, was terminable by a notice of one month on either side.
At the time the appellant’s services with K.G.G.C.U. were terminated his monthly salary had reached K.Shs. 1,875/= per month, that is as at 4th July, 1981.
On 4th July, 1981 the appellant’s services were terminated in terms of K.G.G.C.U’s letter of 4th July, 1981 addressed to the appellant. The reasons given for such dismissal were that the appellant was rude to customers, was guilty of insubordination and had once (on 29th June, 1991) used abusive language to the manager under whom he worked.
The reasons for dismissal were eventually not in issue as the learned judge in the superior court (Rimita J.) correctly held that the appellant (despite such alleged wrongful dismissal) was paid his full terminal dues, that is three months' salary in lieu of notice and leave pay. This was a net figure of K.Shs.4,627/40 in replacement of a stale cheque.
He was also paid a sum of Shs.5286/30 under the respondent’s retirement benefit scheme, shs.152/= as refund of his contribution to welfare fund (adversity aid fund); and K.Shs.1513/= for twenty days service gratuity based on twenty days for each completed year of service upto 31st August, 1963 since the appellant had completed only one year of service when the service gratuity scheme was abolished.
The learned judge was not impressed by the demeanor of the appellant in the witness box and consequently did not find it necessary to go into the issue of unlawful dismissal on account of the appellant’s benefits having been paid in full.
There were some differences in the signatures on the petty cash vouchers allegedly signed by the appellant and the learned judge, in our view, quite properly accepted the evidence of Isidora M.J. Romsalves who stated that the appellant collected moneys in question from her and acknowledged receipts. Just like the learned judge we see no reason to disbelieve Ms. Romsalves who was at the time of giving evidence no more in the employment of K.G.G.C.U. She had no axe to grind and her evidence was credit-worthy. The learned judge prefered her evidence as opposed to that of the appellant and we see no reason to disagree with the judge.
In relation to a contract of employment the employee is only entitled to receive what the contract stipulates. The appellant was paid his full entitlement. No general damages are payable for dismissal of a servant.
In the end result we dismiss this appeal with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of March, 1996.
R. O. KWACH
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH
………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL