[2021] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants were employees of the respondent, had performed teaching duties, and submitted claims for payment, but there was no evidence of payment for services rendered. The respondent failed to file any defence or contest the claim, and internal correspondence admitted the existence of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Mwaninki; Plaintiff: James Waweru; Plaintiff: Evans Ombongi; Plaintiff: Moses Biwott; Plaintiff: Peter Kanegeni; Plaintiff: Joseph Dennis Wamoto; Plaintiff: Emily Wamoto; Plaintiff: Lucy Ann Karani; Plaintiff: Margaret Siele; Plaintiff: Wilfred Nyagaka Mbeche; Plaintiff: Joyce Mumbi Kamau; Defendant: Kenya Institute of Management
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 14 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_claimant
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Salary Arrears, Withholding of Wages, Employment Contracts, Statutory Deductions, Unfair Labour Practices
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Salary Arrears Withholding of Wages Employment Contracts Statutory Deductions Unfair Labour Practices

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mwaninki

Plaintiff

James Waweru

Plaintiff

Evans Ombongi

Plaintiff

Moses Biwott

Plaintiff

Peter Kanegeni

Plaintiff

Joseph Dennis Wamoto

Plaintiff

Emily Wamoto

Plaintiff

Lucy Ann Karani

Plaintiff

Margaret Siele

Plaintiff

Wilfred Nyagaka Mbeche

Plaintiff

Joyce Mumbi Kamau

Plaintiff

Kenya Institute of Management

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully withheld the claimants. salaries contrary to the Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of salary arrears as claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent. actions amounted to unfair labour practices under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants were employees of the respondent, had performed teaching duties, and submitted claims for payment, but there was no evidence of payment for services rendered. The respondent failed to file any defence or contest the claim, and internal correspondence admitted the existence of salary arrears. The court held that the claimants had established their case on a balance of probabilities, and the respondent. actions amounted to unlawful withholding of wages and unfair labour practices. Judgment was entered for the claimants for the sum claimed, less statutory deductions, with costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Court Disposition

judgment_for_claimant

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the claimants for Kshs. 5,020,348 less statutory deductions.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the suit.