[2024] KEELRC 2172 (KLR)
The court held that the respondent's financial constraints do not constitute a valid legal ground for withholding payment of terminal benefits that are admitted as due and owing. The claimant's resignation and entitlement to the computed sum were not in dispute, and the respondent had already made partial payments....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2172 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anne Wanjiru Miano; Respondent: The Kenya Institute of Management
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E172 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimant on admission; statement of response and counterclaim struck out.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Terminal Benefits, Employment Contracts, Judgment on Admission
- 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
Anne Wanjiru Miano
Applicant
The Kenya Institute of Management
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's admitted financial constraints justify non-payment of the claimant's terminal benefits.
- 2 Whether judgment on admission should be entered in favour of the claimant for the unpaid terminal dues.
- 3 Whether the respondent's statement of response and counterclaim should be struck out.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent's financial constraints do not constitute a valid legal ground for withholding payment of terminal benefits that are admitted as due and owing. The claimant's resignation and entitlement to the computed sum were not in dispute, and the respondent had already made partial payments. The respondent's unilateral cessation of payments was unjustified, especially after the claimant had accepted staggered payments. The court found that the claim was unnecessary and avoidable, as the parties had disengaged consensually and there was no disagreement on the amount due. Accordingly, judgment on admission was entered for the claimant for the unpaid sum, and the...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimant on admission; statement of response and counterclaim struck out.
Orders
- Judgment is entered on admission in favour of the claimant for Kshs. 1,313,300.
- The statement of response and counterclaim are struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Miano v Kenya Institute of Management (Cause E172 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2172 (KLR) (30 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2172 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E172 of 2023
J Rika, J
August 30, 2024
Between
Anne Wanjiru Miano
Claimant
and
The Kenya Institute of Management
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Claimant is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya.
2. She was employed by the Respondent as Legal Counsel/Company Secretary, in a contract limited to a term of 3 years, on 25th September 2018. The contract was renewable. Her salary was Kshs. 220,000 monthly.
3. She resigned on 6th May 2021. The Respondent accepted her resignation on 10th May 2021.
4. Her terminal benefits were computed by the Respondent, at Kshs. 1,832,300. She did not dispute computation. The Respondent paid the sum in instalments, but stopped payment. A sum of Kshs. 1,313,300 remains unpaid, which necessitated the filing of this debt recovery Claim.
5. The Respondent concedes owing the Claimant the sum pleaded, stating it is experiencing financial constraints. It is indebted to other creditors as well.
6. The Claimant filed an Application on 20th February 2024, asking the Court to enter Judgment on admission, in her favour; or, by striking out the Statement of Response and Counterclaim.
7. Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their Submissions at the last appearance before the Court, on 10th July 2024.
The Court Finds: - 8. This dispute is unnecessary. The Parties disengaged consensually. There was no disagreement on terminal benefits payable. The Claimant even accepted payment through instalments. She received some payments through instalments. There is no reason by the Respondent to justify its unilateral decision, to stop paying the Claimant her full terminal benefits. Having financial constraints, cannot be a good ground, for denying a legal professional who has rendered faithful service, in accordance with the terms of her contract, payment of her terminal dues. It is over 3 years since she left employment. If the Respondent needed time, to arrange payment, that was granted, when the Claimant acceded to staggered payments. There was no reason for the Respondent to cease payments. When an Employee leaves employment, terminal benefits due, must be paid promptly, to enable the Employee plan for the hereafter. This Claim could have been avoided.It is ordered: -a.Judgment is entered on admission in favour of the Claimant for the sum of Kshs. 1,313,300. b.The Statement of Response and Counterclaim are struck out.c.Costs to the Claimant.d.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI, UNDER PRACTICE DIRECTION 6[2] OF THE ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, 2020, THIS 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024. JAMES RIKAJUDGE