[2022] KEELRC 1710 (KLR)
The court found that while the claimant was employed by the respondent as a customer attendant and later as a forecourt supervisor from July 2012 to March 2015, he failed to provide evidence to support his claims for overtime, public holiday pay, and terminal benefits. The claims for special damages were not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 1710 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kassim Abdalla Mohamed; Respondent: Jomvu Gas Station
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 720 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Overtime Claims, Public Holiday Pay, Terminal Benefits, Special Damages Pleading
- 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
Kassim Abdalla Mohamed
Claimant
Jomvu Gas Station
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was employed by the respondent and the terms of such employment.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to overtime and public holiday payments as claimed.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal benefits as claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the claimant was employed by the respondent as a customer attendant and later as a forecourt supervisor from July 2012 to March 2015, he failed to provide evidence to support his claims for overtime, public holiday pay, and terminal benefits. The claims for special damages were not specifically pleaded or strictly proved, and no basis for the calculations was provided. As a result, the court dismissed the suit, finding that the claimant had not justified his claims on a balance of probabilities.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Mohamed v Jomvu Gas Station (Cause 720 of 2015) [2022] KEELRC 1710 (KLR) (22 July 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELRC 1710 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Cause 720 of 2015
B Ongaya, J
July 22, 2022
Between
Kassim Abdalla Mohamed
Claimant
and
Jomvu Gas Station
Respondent
Judgment
1. The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on September 22, 2015 through GA Okumu & Company Advocates. The claimant prayed for judgment against the respondent for:a)Outstanding emoluments Kshs 297,162b)Costs of the suitc)Interest on (a) and (b) above until payment in fulld)Any other relief or further relief as this honourable may consider just fit.
2. The respondent filed on November 9, 2015 the response to the claim through Oduor Siminyu & Company Advocates. The respondent prayed that the claimant’s suit be dismissed with costs.
3. The claimant’s advocate stated that the claimant is in Saudi Arabia and thus the claimant will not be able to testify to his case. The respondent’s advocate did not object to the same and he further stated that he will not also be calling any witness to testify in the matter. The case is being determined on pleadings, documents and the parties’ final submissions.
4. The court has considered the pleadings, documents, and the final submissions. The court makes the following pertinent findings.
5. To answer the 1st issue for determination the court returns that the evidence is that the respondent employed the claimant as a customer attendant and later as a forecourt supervisor. He worked from July 2012 to March 2015 per the letter of recommendation dated 22. 14. 2015 as issued by the respondent.
6. The 2nd issue is whether the claimant is entitled to overtime and public holiday payment as prayed for. The claims are for special damages requiring particular pleading and strict establishment. The claimant provided no evidence that he worked for the 18 public holidays and 1032 hours of overtime. The basis of calculating the amounts claimed was not pleaded or provided at all. The claims will fail as not justified at all.
7. Similarly, the claimant provided no contractual basis for the terminal benefits of ½ salary for 3 years and the formula invoked in calculating the amount as claimed was not provided.
8. The court has considered all circumstances of the suit and there will be no orders on costs.In conclusion the suit is hereby dismissed with no orders on costs.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT MOMBASA THIS FRIDAY 22ND JULY, 2022. BYRAM ONGAYAJUDGE