[2022] KEELRC 535 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to prove he was unlawfully dismissed. The evidence, particularly the muster roll, indicated the claimant left employment on 13th March 2015 by desertion, not by summary dismissal as alleged. The claimant’s pleadings were vague, lacking specific figures for damages or notice...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 535 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Paul Otieno Oketch; Respondent: Inter Security Services Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1785 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim declined except for order for certificate of service.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Summary Dismissal, Desertion of Duty, Certificate of Service, Unfair Termination, Pleading Requirements
- 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
Paul Otieno Oketch
Claimant
Inter Security Services Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully dismissed by the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant deserted employment or was summarily dismissed.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages, notice pay, and certificate of service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to prove he was unlawfully dismissed. The evidence, particularly the muster roll, indicated the claimant left employment on 13th March 2015 by desertion, not by summary dismissal as alleged. The claimant’s pleadings were vague, lacking specific figures for damages or notice pay, and his evidence was inconsistent and unpersuasive. The claim for three months’ salary in lieu of notice was not supported by contract or law. The only merited relief was the statutory right to a certificate of service. Accordingly, the claim was declined except for the order that the respondent issue a certificate of service to the claimant.
Court Disposition
Claim declined except for order for certificate of service.
Orders
- The claim is declined save for the prayer for certificate of service.
- No order on costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1785 OF 2016
BETWEEN
PAUL OTIENO OKETCH..................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
INTER SECURITY SERVICES LTD...........................................................RESPONDENT
Rika J
Court Assistant: Emmanuel Kiprono
Paul Mungla & Company Advocates for the Claimant
Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant lodged his Claim on 2nd September 2016. He states, he was employed by the Respondent as a Guard, in February 2001 until 31st March 2015, when the Respondent summarily dismissed him.
2. He states, he was not heard, and was not given reason to justify termination.
3. He earned a monthly salary of Kshs. 10,658 as of the date of termination.
4. He prays for the following orders against the Respondent: -
a. Declaration that dismissal was unlawful.
b. General damages for unlawful dismissal.
c. 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice.
d. Certificate of Service.
e. Costs.
5. The Respondent filed its Statement of Response on 25th October 2016. Its position is that the Claimant deserted employment on 13th May 2015. He was engaged in an act of gross misconduct, which warranted summary dismissal. The Respondent states, it employed the Claimant on 23rd February 2002. He was not employed in 2001. His Claim has no merit. The Respondent contends further, that the Claimant has not specified his prayers. No amounts are pleaded. The Respondent prays the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs.
6. The Claimant, and Respondent’s Director Isaack Okwiny, gave evidence on 29th October 2021. The Cause was last mentioned on 30th November 2021, when the Parties confirmed filing and exchange of Closing Submissions.
7. The Claimant adopted his Witness Statement, Supplementary Witness Statement and Documents on record, in his evidence. He did not leave employment on 13th March 2015, but on 31st March 2015. His contract was terminated by the Respondent.
8. Cross-examined, he held date of employment was in 2001. He conceded a letter referenced ‘temporary casual employment,’ dated 23rd February 2002 indicates this to be the date of employment. The muster roll for March 2015, indicates the Claimant was present until 13th March 2015. He was not at work in April 2015. He worked over the weekends without overtime pay. Pay slips of January 2012 and January 2015 show overtime was paid. This item was captured in other pay slips, until the Claimant left. He did not notice that overtime had been paid. He did not have any document to support annual leave claim. He could not confirm the authenticity of the muster roll. He did not have support for notice of 3 months. Redirected, he told the Court that pay slips were introduced in 2002. He was employed in 2001. He never saw the muster roll while in employment.
9. Okwiny adopted his Witness Statement and Documents filed by the Respondent as his evidence. Cross-examined, he told the Court that the Claimant deserted on 13th March 2015. The Respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss him. He disappeared and could not be reached on phone. Okwiny next saw the Claimant working in the neighbourhood. Okwiny did not have attendance register. Employees had an opportunity to scrutinize the muster roll. The Claimant did not sign the muster roll. All Employees went on annual leave. Okwiny did not have documents showing this. The Claimant worked over 14 years. The Respondent did not issue him Certificate of Service. Redirected, Okwiny emphasized that the Claimant deserted.
The Court Finds: -
10. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Guard. He states he was employed in 2001, while the Respondent states he was employed on 23rd February 2002.
11. The Court does not think the difference on the date of employment, advanced by the Parties, is material to the Claim. There is no prayer for service. In terms of assessing the level of compensation for unfair termination, if any is granted, the difference in the length of service advanced by the Parties is not significant. The Court does not think it is therefore useful, to make a determination on the date of employment. It is sufficient to conclude that the Claimant was employed as a Guard, on or about the year 2001-2002.
12. There was contested evidence about overtime. The Claimant does not pray for overtime pay, in his Pleadings or Submissions, so again it is difficult to understand why Parties spent considerable time haggling on overtime.
13. The muster roll, which the Court is persuaded is an authentic employment record, shows the Claimant left employment on 13th March 2015. He did not work until 31st March 2015.
14. There is also no evidence that he was dismissed by the Respondent on 31st March 2015. He deserted. He left of his own volition, on 13th March 2015.
15. On the whole the Claimant came out as an unreliable witness. He testified that he was not paid overtime. He has not pleaded overtime. Pay slips show overtime paid. He testified he did not notice that overtime was paid, in his pay slips. His Claim was from the onset poorly pleaded. His evidence was haltingly adduced, and not persuasive at all. There were no specific figures pleaded. He attempted to put figures to his generalized Statement of Claim, through the Closing Submissions. Closing Submissions are not Pleadings. The figures should have been clear from the Statement of Claim. If the Respondent wished to contest the figures, it could only do so through its Statement of Response, and on giving evidence. Figures are factual matters, to be canvassed at the trial. The Claimant pleads 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. It is not based on his contract or law.
16. The Respondent shall issue the Claimant his Certificate of Service.
17. No order on the costs.
IT IS ORDERED: -
a.The Claim is declined save for the prayer for Certificate of Service.
b. No order on costs.
Dated, signed and released to the Parties electronically, at Nairobi under the Ministry of Health and Judiciary Covid-19 Guidelines, this10th day of March 2022.
James Rika
Judge