[2016] KEELRC 850 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 850 (KLR)

The court found that Kenneth Kaunda Ogolla was, in fact, the proprietor of Kelly's Bar & Restaurant and the employer of the Grievant, Benjamin Omboko, based on consistent affidavits of service, the Grievant's testimony, and the Respondent's own contradictory statements. The Respondent's denial of knowledge was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 850 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Kenneth Kaunda Ogolla T/A Kelly's Bar & Restaurant
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 262 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Terminal Dues, Employer Identification, Service of Process, Employee Benefits, Wage Underpayment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Terminal Dues Employer Identification Service of Process Employee Benefits Wage Underpayment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Kenneth Kaunda Ogolla T/A Kelly's Bar & Restaurant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Kenneth Kaunda Ogolla was the proprietor of Kelly's Bar and Restaurant and thus the employer of the Grievant.
  2. 2 Whether the Grievant is entitled to terminal dues and other payments claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Kenneth Kaunda Ogolla was, in fact, the proprietor of Kelly's Bar & Restaurant and the employer of the Grievant, Benjamin Omboko, based on consistent affidavits of service, the Grievant's testimony, and the Respondent's own contradictory statements. The Respondent's denial of knowledge was not credible, especially as he responded to court documents served at the business premises. The court held that the Grievant was entitled to terminal dues as claimed, since the Respondent did not deny employment or the computation of dues. The court further held that technical errors in the naming of the Respondent could not defeat the Grievant's substantive rights under the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.144,565.
  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant costs of Kshs.10,000.