[2020] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's claim for overtime compensation constituted a claim for special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The only evidence provided by the claimant was an overtime form bearing his name, but he failed to demonstrate a clear connection between the form and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: George Ogonda Opiyo; Respondent: China Dalian International Economic & Technical Group Ltd Bachuma Gate Project; Interested Party: CAS Consultant Engineering Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 134 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Overtime Compensation, Special Damages, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Overtime Compensation Special Damages Burden of Proof

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Ogonda Opiyo

Claimant

China Dalian International Economic & Technical Group Ltd Bachuma Gate Project

Respondent

CAS Consultant Engineering Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to overtime compensation for the period between November and December 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has specifically pleaded and proved special damages as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's claim for overtime compensation constituted a claim for special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The only evidence provided by the claimant was an overtime form bearing his name, but he failed to demonstrate a clear connection between the form and the amount claimed from the respondent. As a result, the court held that the claimant had not proved his claim to the required legal standard. Consequently, the claim was dismissed for lack of proof.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.