[2018] KEELRC 1784 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to provide any evidence connecting the grievant to the respondent, such as employment records or details of the alleged employment relationship. The grievant was unable to recall key facts, including the dates of employment and termination, and did not provide sufficient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1784 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Transport Workers’ Union; Respondent: Ruiru Feeds Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1903 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Burden of Proof, Employment Relationship, Summary Dismissal
- 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
Transport Workers’ Union
Applicant
Ruiru Feeds Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant proved the existence of an employment relationship between the grievant and the respondent.
- 2 Whether the termination of the grievant's employment was unfair or wrongful under the Employment Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant failed to provide any evidence connecting the grievant to the respondent, such as employment records or details of the alleged employment relationship. The grievant was unable to recall key facts, including the dates of employment and termination, and did not provide sufficient details about his work or the circumstances of his dismissal. The respondent's denial of any employment relationship was not rebutted by credible evidence. Consequently, the claimant did not discharge the burden of proof required under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act to establish either the existence of an employment relationship or that an unfair termination occurred. The...
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The claim is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1903 OF 2014
(Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango)
TRANSPORT WORKERS’ UNION...........................CLAIMANT
-Versus-
RUIRU FEEDS LIMITED......................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The claim herein is filed by Transport Workers’ Union on behalf of MOSES RUGE TIBI, the grievant.
According to the memorandum of claim dated and filed on 17th October 2014, the claimant was employed by the respondent, Ruiru Feeds in 2011 as a heavy commercial driver (over 8 tonnes) and worked for over 2 years satisfactorily without any disciplinary incidents until 19th July 2013, when his employment was terminated.
The reason for termination according to the claim is that the grievant was suspected (wrongly) of carrying unauthorised passengers and goods in the respondent’s company vehicle.
It alleged that the termination was unfair for failure to comply with Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The respondent filed a reply to the memorandum of claim denying any knowledge of the grievant. The respondent avers in the reply to the memorandum of claim, that the grievant is a stranger, that it did not enter into any contract with the grievant and that the claimant has no locus standi to represent the grievant. It prays for dismissal of the suit.
The case was heard on 4th April 2017 in the absence of the respondent who failed to attend court on the hearing date following service of hearing notice by the court.
The grievant who testified on his behalf stated that he was employed by the respondent as a driver. He could not remember the date of employment save that it was in 2011. He could also not recall the date of dismissal but stated it was in 2013. He testified that he was terminated on grounds that he was carrying unauthorised goods and was never issued with a warning. He testified that he was paid Kshs.600 a day translating to Kshs.15,600 a month. He further testified that he was not a member of NSSF.
Mr. Nasir Makuwa, who appeared for the claimant union relied on the pleadings and evidence on record.
Determination
I have considered the pleadings and evidence on record. The claimant in his testimony stated he could not recall the date of employment or termination. He did not mention the vehicle he was driving. He did not explain the circumstances under which he was terminated. He only stated that he was terminated for carrying unauthorised goods. He did not even deny that the reason for termination was wrong or that it was not true that he was carrying unauthorised goods.
The respondent having denied any knowledge of the grievant, it was imperative that the claimant or grievant submit some evidence connecting the grievant with the respondent. Unfortunately, there was none.
Section 47 (5) provides that in a claim for unfair termination or wrongful dismissal, it is the burden of the employee to prove that an unfair termination of employment occurred. In the present case, I find that the claimant has not proved that there was unfair termination or wrongful dismissal of the grievant. It has not even proved that there was an employment relationship between the grievant and the respondent.
In the circumstances, I find that the claimant has not proved its case and dismiss the same.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE