[2017] KEELRC 585 (KLR)
The court held that only those plaintiffs who provided documentary evidence supporting their tabulated claims for salary arrears were entitled to judgment. The claims were in the nature of special damages, which under Kenyan law must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Since only 40 plaintiffs submitted the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 585 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rufus Njuguna; Plaintiff: Rurian Micheni; Plaintiff: Danson Kimani; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority; Defendant: C.A. Kuto
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application 3 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment entered in favour of 40 plaintiffs for salary arrears; claims of other plaintiffs dismissed; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Salary Arrears, Special Damages, Termination of Employment, Documentary Evidence, Assessment of Damages
- 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
Rufus Njuguna
Plaintiff
Rurian Micheni
Plaintiff
Danson Kimani
Plaintiff
Attorney General
Defendant
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
Defendant
C.A. Kuto
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of salary and other benefits for the period dating back to 18-04-2002.
- 2 Whether the claims for salary arrears must be supported by documentary evidence to be awarded as special damages.
- 3 Whether the court should dismiss claims not supported by documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that only those plaintiffs who provided documentary evidence supporting their tabulated claims for salary arrears were entitled to judgment. The claims were in the nature of special damages, which under Kenyan law must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Since only 40 plaintiffs submitted the required evidence, judgment was entered in their favour for the amounts verified, while the claims of the remaining plaintiffs were dismissed for want of supporting evidence. The court further ordered that each party bear their own costs, emphasizing the necessity of documentary proof in claims for special damages arising from employment disputes.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered in favour of 40 plaintiffs for salary arrears; claims of other plaintiffs dismissed; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the 40 plaintiffs named in the judgment for the sums set out in the table.
- Claims for all other plaintiffs are dismissed for want of supporting evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
72 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
Judicial Review Application No 3 Of 2015
[FORMERLY MISC CIVIL CASE NO 1278 OF 2004]
RUFUS NJUGUNA....................................................1STPLAINTIFF
RURIAN MICHENI....................................................2NDPLAINTIFF
RURIAN MICHENI....................................................3RDPLAINTIFF
DANSON KIMANI......................................................4THPLAINTIFF
(Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of 63 other former
employees of Directorate of Civil Aviation, a department
within the Ministry of Transport and Communications)
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY.................. 2ND DEFENDANT
C.A. KUTO............................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. This matter was heard and determined in the High Court (Emukule J) who in a ruling delivered on 7th November 2005 made the following order:
“I order that the Plaintiffs be paid their arrears of salary and other benefits for the period dating back to 18-04-2002. The exact amounts to be assessed by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar taking into account the applicable terms of service.”
2. The matter went on appeal and the Court of Appeal, while upholding the substance of the ruling by the trial judge, reversed the direction that the salary arrears be assessed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar. Instead, the Court of Appeal directed the Plaintiffs to file schedules of arrears due to them to form the basis for assessment before any other High Court Judge. The High Court (Mumbi Ngugi J) transferred the file to this Court in March 2015.
3. In an interim ruling delivered on 19th August 2016, I directed the Plaintiffs to file documentary evidence in support of their respective tabulations. Only forty (40) of them provided the required evidence and the supported tabulation of their dues are as shown below:
Name. ID Number. Salary at Salary Arrears 2002 – 2014
Termination. (145 months)
1. Rufus B. Njuguna 0986177 20,472. 00 2,968,440. 00
2. David N. Onyango 0680077 20,472. 00 2,968,440. 00
3. Elizabeth W. Mwangi 13778753 19,471. 00 2,823,295. 00
4. Jackline W. Muchoki 13706079 20,403. 00 2,958,435. 00
5. Thomas Omondi 0301235 34,397. 00 4,978,565. 00
6. Allan M. Mukindia 8537362 29,256. 00 4,242,120. 00
7. Moses F. Wandera 9803576 22,409. 00 3,249,305. 00
8. Lazarus O Obungo 8142050 27,287. 00 3,956,615. 00
9. Jacob K. Kangogo 12827546 19,383. 00 2,810,535. 00
10. Kenneth S. Mukhaya 6999903 32,909. 00 4,771,805. 00
11. Saul K. Cheruiyot 11121852 30,919. 00 4,483,255. 00
12. Samuel K. Maiyo 11166695 21,393. 00 3,101,985. 00
13. James G. Ngugi 10425230 30,919. 00 4,483,255. 00
14. William K. Gachovia 13573066 19,471. 00 2,823,295. 00
15. Susan W. Mwangi 11287569 22,494. 00 3,261,630. 00
16. Martin M. K’obonyo 8231705 23,958. 00 3,473,910. 00
17. Jacqueline N Nyangau 13893078 15,101. 00 2,189,645. 00
18. Christine I. Itur 8345662 32,287. 00 4,681,615. 00
19. James N. Muiru 7456291 28,472. 00 4,128,440. 00
20. James J Muthuri 13554237 17,971. 00 2,605,795. 00
21. William T Abira 0359380 30,287. 00 4,391,615. 00
22. Peter N. Kairu 1977027081 32,919. 00 4,773,255. 00
23. Wilson N Karanja 1122147 21,393. 00 3,101,985. 00
24. Dominic M Salim 0085569 30,316. 00 4,395,820. 00
25. Joses M Munyithya 13592159 22,803. 00 3,306,435. 00
26. Peter K. Korir 11430315 23,958. 00 3,473,910. 00
27. Danson G. Kimani 10934492 27,943. 00 4,051,735. 00
28. Dishon N Mahinda 13454114 19,256. 00 2,792,120. 00
29. Jeffither G Mbaroki 4434134 47,919. 00 6,948,255. 00
30 Dan R. Manywanda 5959470 32,971. 00 4,780,795. 00
31. Willies M Muya 3424345 35,615. 00 5,164,175. 00
32. Maulid O Ongalo 1397770 19,471. 00 2,823,295. 00
34. Paul N Makali 8369277 42,870. 00 6,216,150. 00
35. Jeremiah O Alubokho 21467878 18,976. 00 2,751,520. 00
36. Elijah G Mwangi 11350628 29,713. 00 4,308,385. 00
37. Tabitha K Litala 9225078 32,287. 00 4,681,615. 00
38. Daniel S Mbinga 8024402 32,287. 00 4,681,615. 00
39. David N Gichuhi 11418095 17,099. 00 2,479,355. 00
40. David M. Njoroge 10708799 20,909. 00 3,031,805. 00
4. In the interim ruling delivered on 19th August 2016, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ claims, being in the nature of special damages, ought to be based on known and verifiable figures. That being the case, the Court was unable to return any figure on account of the Plaintiffs whose claims were not supported by documentary evidence.
5. I therefore enter judgment in favour of the 40 Plaintiffs named in the 2nd column of the above table in the sums set out in the 5th column. The result is that the claims for all the other Plaintiffs are dismissed for want of supporting evidence.
6. Each party will bear their own costs.
7. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 27THDAY OF OCTOBER 2017
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Gathara for 1st Plaintiff
Dr. Khaminwa for 2nd - 67th Plaintiffs
No appearance for the Respondents