[2018] KEELRC 800 (KLR)
The Court found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an employment relationship with the Respondent. The Claimant relied solely on his testimony and did not produce corroborative documentation such as employment records or valid evidence of salary payments. The Court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 800 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Mohamed Ali Adan; Respondent: Abdirizak Mustafa Hussein t/a Roadside Auto Tyres
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 918 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Existence of Employment Relationship, Burden of Proof in Employment Disputes, Unfair Termination, Terminal Dues, Family Relationships in Employment
- 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
Mohamed Ali Adan
Claimant
Abdirizak Mustafa Hussein t/a Roadside Auto Tyres
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there existed an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent capable of enforcement by the Court.
- 2 Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated and entitled to terminal dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an employment relationship with the Respondent. The Claimant relied solely on his testimony and did not produce corroborative documentation such as employment records or valid evidence of salary payments. The Court held that, in the absence of such evidence and given the family relationship between the parties, it could not infer an employment relationship capable of enforcement. Consequently, the claim for unfair termination and terminal dues could not succeed, and the entire claim was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed.
Orders
- The Claimant's entire claim is dismissed.
- Each party will bear his own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 918 0F 2016
MOHAMED ALI ADAN.....................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
ABDIRIZAK MUSTAFA HUSSEIN
T/A ROADSIDE AUTO TYRES...................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. By his Memorandum of Claim dated 2nd December 2016 and filed in court on even date, the Claimant has sued the Respondent for unfair termination of employment and failure to pay terminal dues.
2. The Respondent filed a Response on 27th April 2017 but did not call any witnesses. The Claimant testified on his own behalf. Both parties filed written submissions.
The Claimant’s Case
3. The Claimant states that he was engaged by the Respondent as a salesman from 1st August 2015. He earned a monthly salary of Kshs. 31,000 which was paid to him by voucher. He was not issued with a written contract of employment.
4. The Claimant avers that he worked beyond normal working hours without compensation and that he never went on leave.
5. On 21st November 2016, the Claimant was instructed by the Respondent to hand over the keys and not to report to work the following day. He was not given any reason for the termination. The following day, 22nd November 2016, the Claimant reported to work but was locked out.
6. The Claimant now claims the following:
a) Salary balance for November 2016…………………..Kshs. 11,700. 00
b) One month’s salary in lieu of notice…….....……………….31,000. 00
c) Accrued leave for 15 months…………...………………….35,769. 20
d) Overtime worked on Sundays………………………………99,855. 80
e) Overtime worked on weekdays……………...…………….239,653. 80
f) 12 months’ salary in compensation………….……………372,000. 00
g) Certificate of service
h) Costs plus interest
The Respondent’s Case
7. In its Response dated 26th April 2017 and filed in court on 27th April 2017, the Respondent states that he and the Claimant are cousins. The Respondent adds that the Claimant used to go to his shop where he would sometimes assist in selling goods.
8. The Respondent avers that due to the strong family connection, the relationship between himself and the Claimant was more of a partnership rather than an employer-employee relationship. The Respondent would occasionally offer lunch or a stipend of approximately Kshs. 500 to the Claimant. The Respondent denies employing the Claimant or paying him a monthly salary.
Findings and Determination
9. The first issue for determination in this case is whether there was an employment relationship between the parties capable of enforcement by the Court. The Claimant states that he was employed by the Respondent as a salesman at a monthly salary of Kshs. 31,000.
10. Apart from his word however, the Claimant did not adduce any corroborative evidence. He told the Court that he was paid by way of vouchers which were retained by the Respondent.
11. It seems to me that there may have been some work arrangement between the parties but as held by this Court in John Kamau Mburu v Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) & another [2015] eKLR, not every work relationship creates an employment relationship. This is a specialized court exercising specialized jurisdiction in employment and labour matters. With specific reference to employment matters, the existence of an employment relationship is a prerequisite.
12. If the Claimant wanted the Court to believe that he was indeed an employee of the Respondent, he ought to have served notice on the Respondent to produce his employment records. Having failed to do so, the Court can only conclude that there were no such records.
13. I will say nothing about the bulk printed text messages produced by the Claimant as they were not accompanied by a transcription certificate and therefore bear no probative value.
14. Ultimately, I find and hold that there was no employment relationship between the parties capable of enforcement by this Court. The result is that the Claimant’s entire claim collapses and is dismissed.
15. In light of the family relationship between the parties as disclosed by the Respondent in his Response, I direct that each party will bear his own costs.
16. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Miss Katu for the Claimant
Mr. Matheka for the Respondent