[2022] KEELRC 4003 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the evidence including a termination letter, warning letters, and bank statements showing regular payments, the claimant was in an employment relationship with the respondents despite the absence of a written contract. The respondents failed to provide written notice of termination or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 4003 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gilliesh Otieno Opiyo; Respondent: Anne Okech Kristensen; Respondent: International Fellowship Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 84 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim partly allowed; claimant awarded compensation, pay in lieu of notice, unpaid salary, and security deposit refund; certificate of service to issue; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Employment Relationship, Compensation for Termination, Pay in Lieu of Notice, Security Deposit Refund
- 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
Gilliesh Otieno Opiyo
Applicant
Anne Okech Kristensen
Respondent
International Fellowship Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was an employee or a volunteer of the respondents.
- 2 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, pay in lieu of notice, unpaid salary, and refund of security deposit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the evidence including a termination letter, warning letters, and bank statements showing regular payments, the claimant was in an employment relationship with the respondents despite the absence of a written contract. The respondents failed to provide written notice of termination or afford the claimant an opportunity to be heard, as required by sections 35(1)(c) and 41 of the Employment Act. The termination was therefore unfair. The claimant was entitled to compensation equivalent to three months' salary, one month's salary in lieu of notice, unpaid salary for June 2015, and a refund of the security deposit, but not to gratuity/service pay due to lack of...
Court Disposition
Claim partly allowed; claimant awarded compensation, pay in lieu of notice, unpaid salary, and security deposit refund; certificate of service to issue; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Respondents to pay claimant Kshs 45,000 as compensation for unfair termination.
- Respondents to pay claimant Kshs 15,000 as pay in lieu of notice.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
Opiyo v Kristensen & another (Cause 84 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 4003 (KLR) (28 September 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELRC 4003 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Cause 84 of 2016
S Radido, J
September 28, 2022
Between
Gilliesh Otieno Opiyo
Claimant
and
Anne Okech Kristensen
1st Respondent
International Fellowship Kenya
2nd Respondent
Judgment
1. Gilliesh Otieno Opiyo (the claimant) sued Anne Okech Kristensen and International Fellowship Kenya (the respondents) on April 4, 2016, alleging unfair termination of employment and breach of contract.
2. The respondents filed a response on August 25, 2020, and on January 24, 2022, the respondents filed a motion seeking an order striking out the cause for not disclosing any cause of action.
3. In lieu of determining the motion, the court scheduled the cause for hearing, and the hearing proceeded on April 26, 2022 and May 24, 2022.
4. The claimant and the 1st respondent, a director of the 2nd respondent, testified.
5. The claimant filed his submissions on July 15, 2022, and the respondents on submissions were not on record by the agreed timeline.
6. The court has considered the pleadings, evidence, and submissions.
Nature of employment relationship 7. The claimant contended that the respondents employed him as an accountant from October 2010 and that the separation occurred on July 2, 2015. He testified that he earned a monthly salary of kshs 15,000/-.
8. The respondent, however, countered that the claimant was engaged as a volunteer accountant on a part-time basis, and there was no employment contract. According to the respondents, the monthly payment of kshs 15,000/- was reimbursement for basic needs such as food and transport.
9. The parties also produced records.
10. The Employment Act 2007 recognises and contemplates various contracts, including oral and written contracts. The act requires a contract to be reduced into writing when certain conditions are implicated.
11. Among the records placed before the court were a letter dated 2 July 2015 informing the claimant of the termination of his employment, warning letters including on performance and a bank statement indicating that the respondents were paying the claimant a salary.
12. The records suggest that the claimant and respondent were in an employment relationship despite the failure to issue a written contract, and the court so finds.
Unfair termination of employment 13. Section 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 207 envisages written notice of termination of employment at least 28 days in advance. The respondents did not issue such a notice to the claimant.
14. In the same vein, section 41 of the act contemplates the employer affording the employee an opportunity to make representations before making the decision to terminate. The respondents did not demonstrate to the court that the claimant was allowed such an opportunity.
15. The court finds that the termination of the claimant’s employment on July 2, 2015 was unfair.
Compensation and Pay in lieu of notice 16. The claimant served the respondents for about 5 years, but he only worked a few days of the week.
17. In consideration of these factors, the court is of the view that the equivalent of a 3-months salary as compensation would be fair.
18. The court will also allow the equivalent of 1 month’s salary in lieuof notice.
Breach of contract June 2015 salary 19. The claimant prayed for kshs 17,000/- as salary from June to July 2, 2015.
20. The respondents did not provide any pay records to show the same was paid, and the court will allow this head of the claim.
Security deposit 21. The claimant produced records showing that he was deducted a total of kshs 15,000/- as a security deposit.
22. Since the deposit was refundable upon the claimant returning work items issued to him, such as a laptop, which he returned, the court finds that he is entitled to the deposit.
Gratuity/Service pay 23. The claimant did not place before the court any evidential foundation to the claim for kshs 427,000/- as service pay or gratuity and relief is declined.
Certificate of Service 24. A certificate of service is a statutory entitlement, and the respondents should issue one to the claimant within 21-days.
Conclusion and Orders 25. The court finds and declares that the claimant was an employee of the respondents and that his employment was terminated unfairly.
26. The claimant is awarded:i.Compensation kshs 45,000/-ii.Pay in lieu of notice kshs 15,000/-iii.Unpaid salary kshs 17,000/-iv.Security deposit refund kshs 15,000/-v.Total kshs 92,000/-
27. The respondents to issue a certificate of service within 21 days.
28. The claimant acted in person. Each party to bear own costs.
DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIArbJUDGEAppearancesFor claimant in personFor respondents Owiti, Otieno & Ragot AdvocatesCourt Assistant Chrispo Aura