[2018] KEELRC 2243 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was employed by the respondent. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding the existence of an employment relationship, and the claimant did not call any corroborating witnesses or provide sufficient documentation. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2243 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Danson Nyaga; Respondent: Mastermind Tobacco Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 553 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Burden of Proof, Employment Relationship, Wrongful Dismissal
- 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
Danson Nyaga
Claimant
Mastermind Tobacco Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was employed by the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly or wrongfully dismissed by the respondent.
- 3 Whether the respondent is liable for the alleged unfair termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was employed by the respondent. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding the existence of an employment relationship, and the claimant did not call any corroborating witnesses or provide sufficient documentation. The respondent's denial, coupled with the lack of employment records and the possibility that the claimant was employed by a different company (NGM Company Ltd), led the court to conclude that it would be unsafe to hold the respondent liable for the claims. Consequently, the claim was found unmerited and dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed with costs
Orders
- The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 553 OF 2013
DANSON NYAGA………………….…………………..……..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MASTERMIND TOBACCO LTD………….……………..RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The claimant averred that from early March 2000 he was employed by the respondent as a welder at a daily wage of Kshs 446 per day. On 4th February, 2013 he was dismissed from employment by the respondent’s Manager Mr Kupal on allegations that he had refused to withdraw a civil case he had filed pursuant to injuries that he suffered while working for the respondent.
2. He pleaded that he had been offered Kshs 55,000/= to withdraw the civil case however, he advised the respondent to negotiate with his advocate but the respondent refused and dismissed him instead. The claimant further averred that he was not offered a hearing or explanation and that there were no valid reasons to dismiss him.
3. The respondent on its part pleaded that the claimant was not contracted as a casual worker and that it couldn’t dismiss a person it never employed.
4. In his oral evidence in court, the claimant testified that he used to report to work at 7:30 a.m. and leave at 5. 00 p.m. and that they used to sign in while coming in and out while leaving. It was further his evidence that his wages were paid weekly in cash.
5. The claimant further stated that he fell down while at work an got injured in the leg in 2011. It was further his evidence that Mr Kupal told him in presence of a Mr Kimani his supervisor that if he did not accept the Kshs 55,000/= for his injuries, then he should not come to work.
6. In cross-examination the claimant stated he was never issued with an appointment letter and that he never entered into a contract with NGM. In re-examination he stated he was given an appointment letter but the same was kept by the employer.
7. The respondent’s witness Mr Duncan Karani informed the court that he was the respondent’s Senior Administration Assistant. According to him the claimant was never employed by the respondent and that the respondent was wrongly sued. In cross-examination he stated that he had no record in court to show the claimant was never employed by the respondent. He denied knowledge of a Mr Daniel Simiyu but admitted that he knew NGM Company Ltd as a sister company to the respondent. He further denied knowledge of Mr Kupal.
8. Under section 47(5) of the employment Act, the burden of proving that an unfair termination or wrongful dismissal has taken place rests with the employee while the burden of justifying the grounds for termination or wrongful dismissal shall rest on the employer. Further, the burden of proof of this claim is on the claimant for the court to enter judgement in his favour, the claimant must on a balance of probabilities demonstrate that the allegations he is making more probably occurred than not.
9. The claimant averred he was employed by the respondent which claim the respondent denied. At one point, the claimant alleged he was not issued with an employment letter while at another he alleges such was issued but kept by the respondent. The claimant mentioned the name of one Daniel Simiyu but did not call him or any other former colleague at least to vouch for the allegation that he was indeed employed by the respondent.
10. The respondent’s witness on the other hand admitted that he knew about NGM Company Limited as a sister company of the respondent but denied knowledge of Mr Kupal.
11. What the court can deduce from the above is that there is a possibility that the claimant was employed by NGM and not the respondent. The claimant therefore has not reasonably proved that he was employed by the respondent hence it would be unsafe to burden the respondent with the claims the claimant is making.
12. The claim is therefore found unmerited and is hereby dismissed with costs.
13. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 9th day of February, 2018
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 9th day of February, 2018
In the presence of:-
…………………………………………...…… for the claimant
……………………………………………. for the Respondent
Abuodha J. N.
Judge