[2019] KEELRC 981 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 981 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was a casual employee, as evidenced by payment vouchers indicating irregular workdays and daily wage payments. The claimant's assertion of continuous employment was not credible. The respondent's position that the claimant worked on days of his choosing was accepted. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 981 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Victor Mutie Makobe; Respondent: Auto Springs Manufacturers Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 795 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Casual Employment, Unfair Termination, Service Pay, Nssf Contributions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Constructive Dismissal Casual Employment Unfair Termination Service Pay Nssf Contributions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Mutie Makobe

Claimant

Auto Springs Manufacturers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was constructively dismissed from employment by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a casual employee or a regular employee entitled to terminal benefits.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to unpaid salary, notice pay, leave pay, service gratuity, and compensation for unfair termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was a casual employee, as evidenced by payment vouchers indicating irregular workdays and daily wage payments. The claimant's assertion of continuous employment was not credible. The respondent's position that the claimant worked on days of his choosing was accepted. There was no constructive dismissal or unfair termination, as the claimant was not terminated but simply ceased to report for work. Claims for service pay were not available since the claimant was an NSSF member, and any claim for unremitted NSSF contributions was time-barred. Consequently, the claimant was not entitled to the terminal benefits or compensation sought, and the suit was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's suit is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.