[2018] KEELRC 525 (KLR)
The court found that the employment relationship between the claimant and respondent ended on 31 July 2010 by mutual agreement, as evidenced by the respondent's documentation and the claimant's own admissions regarding the sale of his car and receipt of severance pay. The claimant failed to provide credible evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 525 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kenneth Mukhengi Masinde; Respondent: Gerald Cunningham
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1993 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed with costs to respondent
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Severance Pay, Housing Allowance, Certificate of Service
- 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
Kenneth Mukhengi Masinde
Claimant
Gerald Cunningham
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated from employment.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to unpaid salary, house allowance, annual leave, notice pay, and compensation for unfair termination.
- 3 Whether the claimant was paid all terminal dues upon separation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the employment relationship between the claimant and respondent ended on 31 July 2010 by mutual agreement, as evidenced by the respondent's documentation and the claimant's own admissions regarding the sale of his car and receipt of severance pay. The claimant failed to provide credible evidence of unfair termination or continued employment beyond that date. The court held that all terminal dues, including severance pay and housing, were settled as per the separation agreement, and that the claimant was not entitled to any further payments or compensation. Consequently, all claims for unpaid salary, house allowance, annual leave, notice pay, and compensation for...
Court Disposition
claim dismissed with costs to respondent
Orders
- The claimant's suit is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO.1993 OF 2012
KENNETH MUKHENGI MASINDE..........CLAIMANT
- VERSUS -
GERALD CUNNINGHAM......................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday 30th November, 2018)
JUDGMENT
The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on 04. 10. 2012 in person and he prayed for judgment against the respondent for:
a) Unpaid salary totalling to Kshs. 168, 300. 00.
b) House allowance totalling Kshs. 226, 950. 00.
c) Annual leave totalling Kshs. 16, 858. 00.
d) One month salary in lieu of notice Kshs. 16, 858. 00.
e) Compensation for unfair and frivolous termination Kshs.234, 600. 00.
The claimant subsequently appointed Nyabena Nyakundi & Company Advocates to act in the case.
The response was filed on 13. 06. 2018 through Wasilwa & Company Advocates. The claimant prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
There is no dispute that at all material time the claimant was employed by the respondent as a personal driver from 18. 01. 2005.
The only issue for determination in the case is whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies as prayed for. The court makes findings as follows.
a) The Claimant testified that he was employed by the respondent as a driver on 18. 01. 2005. He testified that he was suddenly terminated on 27. 05. 2012 when the respondent send to the claimant a text message on phone thus, “You just lost your job because Kate told me about your plans. I can’t trust you now”. The claimant testified that the allegations were never brought to his attention. The claimant did not file the extract of the text message or exhibit the phone and the message because he stated that the cell phone had become obsolete and no longer in operation. The respondent’s evidence was that the claimant’s contract of service ended on 31. 07. 2010 upon a mutual agreement. The terms of the agreement were that the claimant was to sell his Peugeot 205 saloon car in excellent condition at a heavily discounted price of Kshs.85, 000. 00 instead of the market price of Kshs. 220, 000. 00. The claimant was to earn a severance pay of Kshs.55, 169. 00 at 15 days for each of the 5. 625 years of serves less Kshs.30, 000. 00 being loan and leaving a balance of Kshs.25, 169. 00. The claimant was to clear from the room the respondent had provided for his accommodation. The claimant admitted that the respondent sold him the car in 2010 but denied it was towards terminal dues. The Court has considered the evidence and finds that the parties separated effective 31. 07. 2010 upon mutual agreement. There is no reason to doubt the respondent’s documented evidence on the terms of the separation. The claimant cannot be trusted in his acceptance of the documentation throughout the service except the documents showing the separation arrangements. Having testified that he was sold the car in 2010 and in absence of his alternative account on the terms of the purchase of the car, the Court returns that on a balance of probability, the parties separated effective 31. 07. 2010 by mutual agreement. Allegations of unfair termination and compensation in that regard will collapse.
b) The prayer for payment after termination to May 2012 was obviously not justified and it will fail because the claimant was not in employment throughout that period.
c) The prayer for housing allowance will fail because the respondent provided reasonable housing accommodation for the claimant like it was done for other servants. The letter on separation asks the claimant to clear from the room provided for housing. The prayer will fail.
d) The prayer for severance pay will fail because as at termination the claimant was paid due severance pay.
e) The certificate of service was issued at separation and a copy was exhibited. The prayer will fail.
f) The Court returns that the claimant has failed to justify any of the remedies as prayed for.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered and the claimant’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent.
Signed, datedand deliveredin courtat Nairobithis Friday 30th November, 2018.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE