[2023] KEELRC 907 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 907 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants failed to prove that their employment was terminated on account of redundancy by the respondent. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding key facts such as salary, employment dates, and termination dates. The claimants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 907 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benard M Muturi; Applicant: Joram G Mugai; Applicant: Thomas O Oketch; Applicant: Jacob A Odinga; Applicant: Mike A Mwashi; Applicant: Kelvin N Mbugua; Applicant: Brian C Kariuki; Applicant: Maurice O Omwa; Applicant: Muturi H Maina; Applicant: Patrick Gatehi; Applicant: Michael Mutuku; Respondent: Moses Chege Nganga T/A Mochah Transmotors Company
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 603 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unlawful Termination, Burden of Proof, Employment Act Compliance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unlawful Termination Burden of Proof Employment Act Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benard M Muturi

Applicant

Joram G Mugai

Applicant

Thomas O Oketch

Applicant

Jacob A Odinga

Applicant

Mike A Mwashi

Applicant

Kelvin N Mbugua

Applicant

Brian C Kariuki

Applicant

Maurice O Omwa

Applicant

Muturi H Maina

Applicant

Patrick Gatehi

Applicant

Michael Mutuku

Applicant

Moses Chege Nganga T/A Mochah Transmotors Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' employment was terminated on account of redundancy in accordance with the law.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act regarding redundancy.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants discharged their burden of proof under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants failed to prove that their employment was terminated on account of redundancy by the respondent. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding key facts such as salary, employment dates, and termination dates. The claimants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations of redundancy or unlawful termination. As a result, the claimants did not discharge their burden of proof under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act. Consequently, the entire claim, which was based on an unproven redundancy, was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants' entire claim is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.