Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedEmployment and Labour Relations Court Appeal (Mombasa) — formerly Mombasa High Court Civil Appeal Number 222 of 2010, arising from Mombasa SRMCC No. 176 of 2007· [2016] KEELRC 589 (KLR)

Rising Star Commodities Limited v Daniel Akwera [2016] KEELRC 589 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 September 2016
1,381 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, as plaintiff in Mombasa Senior Resident Magistrate's Court Civil Case Number 176 of 2007, sued his alleged employer for a workplace injury allegedly suffered on 25th October 2005 while loading bags of sugar, and was awarded general damages of Kshs. 65,000, special damages of Kshs. 5,000, costs and interest. The Appellant appealed to the High Court, and the appeal was transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court on jurisdictional grounds. The Appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in holding that paragraph 4 of its Statement of Defence, which alleged the Respondent's own negligence, amounted to an admission of employment, when that paragraph was expressly stated without prejudice as an alternative line of defence. The Respondent and his advocates did not attend the hearing of the appeal, so the Court decided on the record and the Appellant's submissions. The Court found that once employment was denied, the burden fell on the Respondent to prove he was engaged as a casual loader on the material date; he produced no document of engagement and his name was absent from the casual employees' lists. The Court applied the Court of Appeal decision in Malelu Muthama v. Kay Construction Company Limited. The Respondent's evidence also raised issues of truthfulness, credibility, consistency and reliability: the treatment notes showed treatment on 26th October 2005 rather than the pleaded date, he claimed only Kshs. 10 in medical expenses, the treating dispensary witness was not called, and Dr. Ashraph saw no injuries. The Court concluded there were fundamental flaws in the Trial Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and made no order on the costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Burden of proving employment where the employer denies it

Holding

Once the Appellant denied the employment, the burden lay on the Respondent to establish he was engaged as a casual loader on the material date; the Respondent produced no document of engagement and his name was absent from the casual employees' list.

Reasoning

The Trial Court's finding of employment rested on paragraph 4 of the Defence, a without-prejudice alternative line of defence, which the Trial Court wrongly treated as an admission. DW1 and DW2 denied knowing the Respondent and the casual workers' lists did not include his name. The Court fully adopts the principle in Malelu Muthama v. Kay Construction Company Limited, a materially similar case.

p. 3
02

Reliability of the Respondent's evidence on injury and treatment

Holding

The Respondent's evidence raised issues of truthfulness, credibility, consistency and reliability: treatment notes showed 26th October 2005 not the pleaded 25th October, he claimed only Kshs. 10 in medical expenses, the treating dispensary witness was not called, and Dr. Ashraph saw no injuries.

Reasoning

The initial treatment notes were never produced by their author, whose genuineness was disputed; the medical report was prepared years after treatment and based on the disputed notes; the doctor saw no scar. Together with the failed proof of employment, these flaws established fundamental defects in the Trial Court's judgment warranting reversal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where employment is denied by the alleged employer, the employee must prove the fact of employment, and an alternative line of defence stated without prejudice is not an admission of employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Mombasa
Mombasa SRMCC No. 176 of 2007
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal transferred from the High Court to the Employment and Labour Relations Court on jurisdictional grounds

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rising Star Commodities Limited v Daniel Akwera [2016] KEELRC 589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Employment and Labour Relations Court Appeal (Mombasa) — formerly Mombasa High Court Civil Appeal Number 222 of 2010, arising from Mombasa SRMCC No. 176 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/589/eng@2016-09-29

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