Samuel Omweri Ogechi v Minazini Enterprises Ltd [2014] KEELRC 946 (KLR)

The Respondent's own witness admitted employment but from 2010. The Claimant's testimony that he was engaged in 2009 was unchallenged in cross-examination. The appointment letter did not comply with section 9(2) and (3) of the Employment Act as it did not show signature before a person other than the employer, so the court believed the Claimant and found employment from 1 June 2009.

The dismissal letter dated 28 December 2012 showed employment up to that date. The December 2012 pay slip, unlike earlier ones, was not signed in acknowledgment by the Claimant, evidencing non-payment. Sections 17, 18 and 49(1)(b) of the Employment Act entitle an employee to earned wages as of right.

The witness's claim that commuted leave was paid was not put to the Claimant in cross-examination and no document was produced to evidence the payment; the pay slips indicated nil for leave. Relying on sections 10(3) and (7) and 74 of the Employment Act and the unchallenged quantum, the court found for the Claimant.

The Respondent admitted employees worked on public holidays without pay. Regulation 8 of the Regulation of Wages (General) Order makes specified holidays holidays with full pay, and work on a public holiday attracts double-rate compensation. As with leave, the quantum was unchallenged.

Rule 4 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, particularly rules 4(d) and (e), requires facts, grounds and the law relied upon. Despite the Court's accessibility to informal and unrepresented litigants, both parties here were represented, yet the cause of action and some prayers were unclear. Reliefs like unfair termination compensation, raised only in submissions, were declined.