[2019] KEELRC 432 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 432 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was an employee of the respondent in his personal capacity. The Parliamentary Service (Constituency Officers) Regulations 2005 provide that any liability for unfair dismissal of constituency office staff is to be borne by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 432 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Kerama Ratemo; Defendant: Hon. Richard Nyagaka Tongi
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 343 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Summary Dismissal, Employment Contracts, Constituency Office Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Wrongful Termination Summary Dismissal Employment Contracts Constituency Office Employment

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kerama Ratemo

Plaintiff

Hon. Richard Nyagaka Tongi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully and unfairly dismissed from employment as constituency office manager.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent, as Member of Parliament, is personally liable for employment-related claims arising from the constituency office.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to general damages for the unserved term of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was an employee of the respondent in his personal capacity. The Parliamentary Service (Constituency Officers) Regulations 2005 provide that any liability for unfair dismissal of constituency office staff is to be borne by the constituency office, not the Member of Parliament personally. There was no evidence that the respondent was personally involved in the dismissal or that he bore personal liability. Consequently, the suit against the respondent was misconceived and lacked merit.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit against the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.