[2018] KEELRC 480 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 480 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship with either respondent. The evidence showed that the claimant was a volunteer who received support from the church community rather than wages for employment. The 1st respondent could not be the employer in her personal or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 480 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Esther Wangui Maina; Respondent: Jane Wairimu Ndirangu; Respondent: The Presbyterian Foundation
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 319 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Wrongful Termination, Minimum Wage, Statutory Deductions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Employment Status Wrongful Termination Minimum Wage Statutory Deductions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Wangui Maina

Plaintiff

Jane Wairimu Ndirangu

Respondent

The Presbyterian Foundation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee or a volunteer of the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unlawfully terminated from employment.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to wage underpayments, service pay, notice pay, statutory deductions, overtime, and other reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship with either respondent. The evidence showed that the claimant was a volunteer who received support from the church community rather than wages for employment. The 1st respondent could not be the employer in her personal or official capacity, and the 2nd respondent did not employ casuals. As such, the claimant was wrongly suited, and her claims for employment benefits and remedies were not tenable. The suit was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's suit is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.