[2017] KEELRC 508 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her entitlement to commission or to prove that her termination was due to pregnancy and thus discriminatory. The court emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the claimant, even though the matter proceeded ex-parte. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 508 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Faith Waithaka; Respondent: Flexenclosure Kenya Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 620 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application for review dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Burden of Proof, Pregnancy Discrimination, Contractual Commission, Termination of Employment
- 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
Faith Waithaka
Applicant
Flexenclosure Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court erred in omitting to award the claimant commission as per her contract.
- 2 Whether the court failed to award compensation for discrimination based on pregnancy.
- 3 Whether the application for review meets the threshold under rule 32 of the court rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her entitlement to commission or to prove that her termination was due to pregnancy and thus discriminatory. The court emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the claimant, even though the matter proceeded ex-parte. The application for review did not meet the requirements set out under rule 32 of the court rules, as it did not present new evidence, mistake, or any other sufficient reason. The issues raised were more appropriate for an appeal rather than a review. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review with costs.
Court Disposition
application for review dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 620 OF 2014
FAITH WAITHAKA………..…………………………..………...CLAIMANT
VERSUS
FLEXENCLOSURE KENYA LIMITED...…...........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a memorandum of review filed on 20th May, 2016 the claimant sought that the judgement of the court delivered on 8th April, 2016 be reviewed. The claimant stated that the court omitted to award the claimant the prayer for commission yet it was contractual.
2. The claimant further complained that the court did not award her for discrimination yet the respondent clearly discriminated against the claimant by terminating her services while she was pregnant.
3. The parameters for review of the courts judgement are well set out under rule 32 of the court rules. The rule provides as follows:
“A person who is aggrieved by a decree or an order of the court may apply for a review of the award, judgement or ruling.
(a) If there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of that person or could not be produced by that person at the time when the decree was passed or the order made; or
(b) An account of some mistake on the face of the record
(c) On account of the award judgement or ruling being no breach of any written law.
(d) If the award, the judgement or ruling requires clarification or
(e) For any other sufficient reason.
4. The applicant herein has complained that the court did not award her commission yet it was part of her contract. the claimant further stated that the court omitted to award her compensation on account of discrimination yet her dismissal was on account of pregnancy. The burden of proof in civil claims is on the person who wants the court to believe or disbelieve that a particular fact, subject of the claim has occurred or not occurred.
5. It is indeed true that the claimant was entitled to commission, however no sufficient evidence was produced either as exhibit in the memo of claim or in her oral testimony to show she reached the sales level that entitled her to any commission. On the question of termination on account of pregnancy hence discrimination, the court also did not get sufficient evidence to show that the termination was not out of redundancy but due to her pregnancy.
6. Although the matter proceeded ex-parte, this did not lessen the burden on the part of the claimant to adduce evidence in support of her claim. The claims of commission and dismissal on account of pregnancy therefore largely remained unsubstantiated hence not safe to make a judgement in favour of the claimant.
7. In any event if the claimant is of the view that the court erred in not making the findings complained about, the best course would be to appeal and not file an application for review. The court is therefore of the view that the application for review does not raise matters contemplated by rule 32 of the court rules but rather issues which ought to be taken on appeal against the judgement of the court.
8. The court therefore dismisses with costs the application for review.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 29th day of September, 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 29th day of September, 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of :
…………………………………………..Claimant
………………………………………….. Respondent