Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 2nd October 2012, filed 11th November 2012· [2014] KEELRC 825 (KLR)

Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Parklands Motors Limited [2014] KEELRC 825 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
21 January 2014
2,468 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a long-serving worker notice pay, service pay and a certificate of service, but dismissed bigger claims because no one proved their case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union, acting for grievant Samson Odhiambo, alleged that his employment with Parklands Motors, begun in 1989, was terminated on 8th September 2011 on a fabricated theft allegation, the true reason being his trade union recruitment activities. It sought reinstatement or, alternatively, notice pay, service gratuity, leave, underpayment, 12 months' compensation, damages for 10 years' lost future earnings, a certificate of service and costs. The Respondent denied employing the grievant before 2007, asserted he worked previously for Solex Motors, pleaded ill health as the reason for his exit, and alternatively asserted he was caught stealing and quit voluntarily after being paid off, but called no evidence. The court found, applying sections 10(6) and 10(7) of the Employment Act, that the grievant was employed from 1989 to 8th September 2011, the unexplained 2000 salary letter and the employer's record-keeping duty tipping the evidential burden. On the reason for termination, the court relied on the Respondent's pleading admission of theft, but found no evidence of a hearing or voluntary exit, and dismissed the unfair termination claim because neither party proved its pleaded case. Underpayment, 12 months' compensation and future-earnings damages failed for want of proof or legal basis. The court awarded Kshs. 9,000 notice pay, Kshs. 99,000 service pay (15 days per year for 22 years under section 35(5) and 35(6)), a certificate of service under section 51, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Employment relationship and start date

Holding

The grievant was an employee of the Respondent from 1989 to 8th September 2011

Reasoning

The grievant produced a 2000 letter from Parklands Motors declining a salary increase, which the Respondent never denied or explained. The employer, obligated to keep employment records for five years after termination, adduced no evidence of how the 2000 contract ended or of accepting the alleged 2007 application. The Respondent's claim that the grievant was employed from 2007 was therefore uncontroverted.

p. 3
02

Reason for termination

Holding

The termination was on account of alleged stealing from the Respondent

Reasoning

The Respondent admitted in its Response that the grievant was found stealing and quit voluntarily and was paid off, repeated in its final submissions, though it pleaded elsewhere that it was unaware of the theft allegation and that the exit was due to ill health. The court relied on the admission; no evidence of any payment to the grievant was produced. The claimant's union-activity allegation was unproved.

p. 3
03

Unfair/unlawful termination

Holding

The claim for unfair termination was dismissed as unproved

Reasoning

Neither party tendered evidence: the claimant produced nothing to support the union-victimisation plea, and the Respondent called no witness to prove theft, ill health or voluntary resignation. There was no evidence of a hearing before termination nor of voluntary exit. Applying the rule that he who alleges must prove, the claim failed.

p. 4
04

Entitlement to terminal dues

Holding

Notice pay of Kshs. 9,000, service pay of Kshs. 99,000 and a certificate of service were awarded; other heads dismissed

Reasoning

The Respondent's admission that the employment was terminated entitled the grievant to notice pay. Service pay was due under sections 35(5) and 35(6) of the Employment Act since the grievant was not in NSSF or any retirement scheme, and the Respondent did not controvert the claim. A certificate of service is a statutory entitlement under section 51. The remaining heads lacked proof.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employer fails to produce a written contract in legal proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment rests on the employer
  • He who alleges must prove; a party that fails to tender evidence in support of its allegations bears the consequences
  • Compensatory damages for unfair termination are payable only where unfair termination is proved
  • Service pay is payable to an employee whose employment is terminated where the employee is not a member of a registered retirement benefits scheme, gratuity scheme or NSSF

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of Kshs. 9,000 as pay in lieu of notice (one month's salary as pleaded)
  2. 2.Award of Kshs. 99,000 as service pay (15 days' salary per year worked for 22 years)
  3. 3.Grievant to be issued with a certificate of service pursuant to section 51 of the Employment Act
  4. 4.Each party to bear its own costs
  5. 5.Claims for underpayment, 12 months' salary compensation and damages for 10 years' future earnings dismissed for want of proof

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsection 49
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 10(6)
  • Employment Actsection 10(7)
  • Employment Actsection 35(5) as read with section 35(6)
  • Employment Actsection 51
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 49 of the Labour Relations Act (first-instance jurisdiction following certificate of disagreement from conciliation before the Minister for Labour)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Parklands Motors Limited [2014] KEELRC 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Memorandum of Claim dated 2nd October 2012, filed 11th November 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/825/eng@2014-01-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.