[2023] KEELRC 2408 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant was indeed an employee of the Respondent, as evidenced by documentary proof and the Respondent's failure to provide a substantive defence. The Respondent's mere denial was insufficient to rebut the Claimant's case. The Claimant's evidence on employment, redundancy, and non-payment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 2408 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Musyoka Francis Mwinzi; Respondent: Athi River Marble & Granite Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 356 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in full for the Claimant.
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy, Terminal Benefits, Salary Arrears, Annual Leave Pay
- 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
Musyoka Francis Mwinzi
Applicant
Athi River Marble & Granite Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondent.
- 2 Whether the Claimant is owed terminal dues as claimed.
- 3 Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant was indeed an employee of the Respondent, as evidenced by documentary proof and the Respondent's failure to provide a substantive defence. The Respondent's mere denial was insufficient to rebut the Claimant's case. The Claimant's evidence on employment, redundancy, and non-payment of terminal dues was unchallenged and credible. The court held that the Claimant was entitled to salary arrears for the period May 2015 to February 2016 and annual leave pay, as claimed. The Respondent's defence was deemed a sham, lacking any substantive response to the issues raised. Consequently, the court allowed the claim in full and awarded the claimed sums and costs to the...
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in full for the Claimant.
Orders
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs.242,000 as salary arrears.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs.16,968 as annual leave pay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Mwinzi v Athi River Marble & Granite Ltd (Cause 356 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2408 (KLR) (3 October 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 2408 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 356 of 2018
DKN Marete, J
October 3, 2023
Between
Musyoka Francis Mwinzi
Claimant
and
Athi River Marble & Granite Ltd
Respondent
Judgment
1This matter was originated by way of the Claimant’s Memorandum of Claim dated March 13, 2028. The issue in dispute is herein cited as;Failure by the Respondent to pay terminal benefits to the claimant.
2The Respondent in a Response to statement of claim dated April 28, 2024 denies the claim and prays that the same be dismissed with costs.
3The claimant’s case is that on or about February 1, 2012, he was employed as a Stone Mason by the Respondent. His pay was Kshs.24,240. 00 per month.
4The claimant’s further case is that he served with loyalty and diligence until March 1, 2016 when he was declared redundant with no payment of terminal dues. These are as follows;1. Salary arrears (May 2015 – Feb 2016) 24,240x10 Kshs. 242,0002. Annual leave pay (24,240/30x21x1) Kshs. 16,968He claims and prays thus;i.The sum of Kshs.259,368 as particularized in paragraph 5 of the claim as particularized in paragraph 5. ii.Cost of this suitiii.Interest in (i) and (ii) above.iv.Any other relief as the Court may deem just.
5The Respondent’s case is a denial of the claim. It is her case that the claimant has no justifiable claim against her and that he is not entitled to the prayer sought. These are vague and misconceived and should be dismissed with costs.
6The Respondent further case is a denial of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the claim which are a tabulation of the dues owing to the claimant. She deems this fictitious for reasons of being vague and misconceived.
7The claimant in his written submissions dated April 13, 2023 reiterates his claim whereas he Respondent does not furnish any.
8The issues for determination therefore are;1. Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondent.2. Whether the Claimant is owed terminal dues as claimed.3. Is the Claimant entitled to the relief sought4. Who bears the costs of this cause.
9This is a very interesting matter. No party went out of his way to overtly fight their respective cases. I find that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and the basis of the Claimant’s supplementary list of documents adduced and had in his favour. This beside the Claimant’s tallying Claimant’s witness statement and demand letter dated June 7, 2021, drawn by Kituo Cha Sheria.
10The probable case tilts in favour of Claimant on both a balance of probabilities and also preponderance of evidence. He has a more glaring case as opposed to the Claimant mere denial.
11Further, the Respondent only present a sham defence in all senses of the word. It does not answer to the claim or issues raised in the claim, or at all. It merely denies and rubbishes the claim but does not offer any substantial defence to the claim. It therefore has no standing for consideration as a defence to the claim. I therefore find that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and is entitled to the relief sought. And this answers the 1st issue for determination.
12The 2nd issue for determination is whether the Claimant is owed terminal dues as claimed. He is. The Claimant’s case comes out overwhelmingly in support of his claim. The defence is hollow if not completely absent. I therefore find that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought.
13I am therefore inclined to allow the claim and offer relief as follows;i.Salary accessed - Ksh.242,000. 00ii.Amount issue pay - Ksh. 16,968. 00Total of claim - Ksh.259,368. 00iii.The costs of this suit be borne by the Respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed this 3rd day of October 2023. D. K. Njagi MareteJUDGEAppearancesPARA 1. Mr. Okello instructed by Okello &Lusenaka Advocate for the Claimant.PARA 2. No appearance for the Respondent.ELRC CAUSE NO. (NAIROBI) 356 OF 2018 - JUDGMENT 0 of 3