[2020] KEELRC 1398 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship with the respondent. Despite being aware from early correspondence that the respondent denied such a relationship, the claimant did not call corroborative witnesses or amend pleadings to include the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELRC 1398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Francis Kinyua Mwangi; Respondent: Home Scope Properties Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1287 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- cause dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Employment Relationship, Burden of Proof, Wrongful Termination, Contractual Relationship
- 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
Francis Kinyua Mwangi
Claimant
Home Scope Properties Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant was wrongfully and unfairly terminated.
- 3 Whether the respondent failed to pay terminal benefits to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship with the respondent. Despite being aware from early correspondence that the respondent denied such a relationship, the claimant did not call corroborative witnesses or amend pleadings to include the alleged independent contractor. The court held that without foundational evidence, it could not infer an employer/employee relationship under the Employment Act. Consequently, the claim for wrongful termination and terminal benefits could not be sustained, and the cause was dismissed.
Court Disposition
cause dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The cause is dismissed.
- The claimant shall pay costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1287 OF 2015
FRANCIS KINYUA MWANGI...................CLAIMANT
V
HOME SCOPE PROPERTIES LTD.......RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Francis Kinyua Mwangi (Claimant) instituted legal proceedings against Home Scope Properties Ltd (Respondent) on 27 July 2015 and he stated the Issue in Dispute asWrongful and unfair termination of the Claimant’s services and failure by the Respondent to pay terminal benefits to the Claimant.
2. The Claimant filed an Amended Memorandum of Claim on 12 October 2017 and the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Response on 25 January 2019.
3. The Cause was heard on 19 December 2019. The Claimant and a Messenger with the Respondent testified.
4. The Claimant’s submissions should have been filed/served on or before 24 January 2020 but were not on file by this morning while the Respondent filed its submissions on 18 February 2020.
5. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and the submissions and will adopt the Issues as identified by the Respondent in its submissions.
Employment relationship
6. The Claimant asserted that he was employed by the Respondent as a machine operator on 15 June 2013 until dismissal on 28 August 2014 and that he used to be paid through voucher by one Wambua on the instructions of a Manager called Mbugua. He stated that the Respondent’s offices were in Karen and that he was deployed to a site near Yaya Centre.
7. The Respondent denied that it employed the Claimant and contended that he was an employee of an independent contractor called Mbugua whom it had contracted on some projects.
8. The Respondent called its Messenger as the witness to support the assertion. The witness testified that he used to deliver payment cheques to the said Mbugua, and at other times he would deposit the cheques into Mbugua’s account. The witness produced copies of payment slips.
9. The Court has two inconsistent versions as to the nature of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent. The credibility of both the Claimant and the Respondent’s witness were not impeached.
10. The Court can in the circumstances turn to probabilities to determine the nature of the relationship.
11. It was incumbent upon the Claimant to provide some modicum of evidential foundation to demonstrate an employment relationship with the Respondent. He had filed a witness statement of a person who contended that he worked under the supervision of the Claimant.
12. The Claimant did not explain why he failed to call this prospective witness or any other person he may have worked with to show the nature of the contractual relationship in place.
13. In a letter dated 11 March 2015 from the Respondent to the Claimant’s advocate, the Respondent had denied any employer/employee relationship with the Claimant.
14. From that early, the Claimant was aware that he needed to go a little further to prove the contractual relationship and he could even have amended his pleadings to include the alleged independent contractor who the Respondent claimed was his employer.
15. The Claimant failed to go that little further, and without such evidential foundation, the Court is unable to utilise the provisions of sections 9(2) and 10(7) of the Employment Act, 2007, to draw an inference of employer/employee relationship.
16. The Claimant having failed to establish an employment relationship with the Respondent means the Court has to down its pen and dismiss the Cause without considering any other Issues identified and arising.
17. It is also telling that the Claimant did not/file submissions within the agreed timelines. Perhaps, he realised that there was not much to submit on in respect to the foundational question of whether he was an employee of the Respondent.
18. The Cause is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 13th day of March 2020.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Gichigo instructed by Ndegwa & Ndegwa Advocates
For Respondent Ms. Njagi instructed by Garane & Somane Advocates
Court Assistant Judy Maina