[2018] KEELRC 878 (KLR)
The court found that the claimants had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they were employed by the respondent and were not paid salary for several months. The claims for unpaid salary and salary in lieu of notice were uncontested and supported by documentary evidence. However, the court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 878 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kennedy Okuku; Claimant: Joe Kiduma; Claimant: Tom Oyugi; Claimant: Joshua Ogolla Ogallo; Respondent: Adok Timo Micro Finance Company
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 244 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment After Formal Proof; Respondent Absent
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimants in part; claims for constructive dismissal dismissed.
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Unpaid Wages, Notice Pay, Constructive Dismissal, Redundancy, Termination Without Notice
- 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
Kennedy Okuku
Claimant
Joe Kiduma
Claimant
Tom Oyugi
Claimant
Joshua Ogolla Ogallo
Claimant
Adok Timo Micro Finance Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment After Formal Proof; Respondent Absent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to unpaid salary arrears and salary in lieu of notice.
- 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation for constructive dismissal.
- 3 Whether the respondent is liable for costs and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimants had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they were employed by the respondent and were not paid salary for several months. The claims for unpaid salary and salary in lieu of notice were uncontested and supported by documentary evidence. However, the court held that the claimants failed to prove constructive dismissal, as there was no evidence of intentional or negligent conduct by the respondent warranting such a finding. The respondent's financial difficulties and the claimants' voluntary departure did not meet the threshold for constructive dismissal. The court therefore awarded the claimants unpaid salary arrears and notice pay, but dismissed...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimants in part; claims for constructive dismissal dismissed.
Orders
- Kennedy Okuku awarded Kshs.108,000.
- Joe Kiduma awarded Kshs.78,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 244 OF 2015
(As Consolidated with Cause Nos. 245, 246 and 248 of 2015)
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
KENNEDY OKUKU.....................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
ADOK TIMO MICRO FINANCE COMPANY.....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. Cause No, 244 of 2015 was consolidated with cause Nos. 245 of 2015, 246 of 2015 and 248 of 2015. Cause No. 244 of 2015 is the lead file. The Claimants’ rely on the averments in specific statements of claim and prayers thereof and exhibits annexed to each of the statements of claim to wit letters of appointment, pay slips and letters’ of demand.
2. The respective statements of claim and summons to enter appearance were served on the Respondent on 13th July, 2015 by Chacha Mtundi Barnabas a licensed process server.
3. The Respondent did not enter appearance nor were statements of defence filed in all the consolidated cases.
4. The consolidated suit proceeded to formal proof on 3rd July, 2018. Mr. Joe Kiduma Claimant in Cause No. 245 and Mr. Kennedy Okuku Claimant in Cause no. 244, testified on behalf of all the Claimants.
5. The matters were not defended and therefore the testimony by CW 1 and CW 2 was unrebutted.
6. The brief uncontested facts are as follows:-
Kennedy Okuku
7. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent on 1st June, 2007 as a microfinance officer earning a monthly salary of Kshs.18,000. The Claimant worked continuously and diligently. The Claimant was not paid salary for six months. He stopped working in the year 2012 due to the hardships he was subjected to by the Respondent.
Joe Kiduma
8. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Credit Officer on 7th June, 2007 at a monthly salary of Kshs.13,000. He worked continuously and diligently until year 2012. He was not paid salary for six months and stopped working due to the financial hardships he was subjected to.
Tom Oyugi
9. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Community Mobiliser on 7th October, 2007 earning a monthly salary of Kshs.17,000. He worked continuously and diligently until the year 2012 when he stopped working. He was not paid salary for six months. He left due to financial hardship the Respondent subjected him to.
Joshua Ogolla Ogallo
10. He was employed by the Respondent on 16th September, 2007 as a Microfinance Officer at a monthly salary of Kshs.17,000. He worked continuously and diligently until the year 2012. He was not paid salary for four months and left employment due to the financial hardship he underwent at the hands of the Respondent.
Determination
11. The Claims for terminal benefits are undefended and have been proved on a balance of probabilities as follows:-
a) With respect to 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants, each one of them is awarded one month salary in lieu of notice and six (6) months unpaid, arrear salary.
b) With respect to the 4th Claimant, he is awarded four (4) months arrear salary and one month salary in lieu of notice.
Compensation
12. It is apparent the Respondent went under due to financial difficulties. The Respondent did not terminate the employment of the Claimants. They all simply faced reality and moved on. This would have been a case of declaration of redundancy but it was not pleaded that way. The Claimants have not proved any intentional or negligent conduct by the Respondent which would warrant an adverse decision against the Respondent. The Claimants have not made any claim for payment of severance pay or service gratuity.
13. It is the court’s considered view that the Claimants have failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are entitled to compensation based on alleged constructive dismissal by the Respondent. Section 107, 108 and 109 oblige a party who wishes a set of facts to be found in their favour to prove the same. The Claimants have failed in this respect and the claims for constructive dismissal are dismissed.
14. In the final analysis, judgment is entered in favour of the Claimants as against the Respondent as follows:-
A i) Kennedy Okuku Kshs.108,000
ii) Joe Kiduma Kshs.78,000
iii) Tom Oyugi Kshs.102,000
iv) Joshua Ogallo Kshs.68,000
B. The awards to be paid with interest at court rates from date of filing suit till payment in full.
C. Respondent to pay costs in respect of the four (4) consolidated suits.
D. For the avoidance of doubt, the claims for constructive dismissal were not proved and are dismissed.
Judgment Dated, Signed and delivered this 18th day of October, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Obach for the Claimant
Mr. Orengo for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk