Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedUndated Memorandum of Claim filed 1st October 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1096 (KLR)

Philip Kipkoech Komen v Labour Office Nandi County & another [2016] KEELRC 1096 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 June 2016
DMD.K. Njagi Marete
1,060 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an unfair termination claim because the worker had already accepted a settlement payment and offered no evidence to support his case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance employment claim filed on 1st October 2015 by Philip Kipkoech Komen against the University of Eastern Africa-Baraton (Defendant) and an Interested Party alleged to have terminated his employment. The claimant, by Memorandum of Claim and Notice of Motion under a Certificate of Urgency, sought twelve reliefs including a declaration that his termination was unfair, damages, underpayment of Kshs. 252,000/= for 30 months, NSSF arrears of Kshs. 8,400/=, service pay of Kshs. 21,504/=, house allowance of Kshs. 66,000/=, annual increments, a certificate of service, and costs. The Interested Party filed a response and Replying Affidavit; the Defendant filed Grounds of Opposition asserting the application was premature, misconceived, incompetent, vexatious and an abuse of process. On 26th May 2016 the parties agreed to disposal on the basis of pleadings. The court found the claim 'uncertain' and 'hollow', with no substantive claim demonstrated and no evidence in support. The claimant did not deny that the dispute over termination dues had been amicably settled at the Nandi County Labour office, with payment of Kshs. 62,292/=, evidenced by a payment agreement dated 12th March 2013, an acknowledgment letter and a replacement cheque, and witness statements by Labour officers. The court agreed the claim was an abuse of process, vexatious, premature and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and dismissed it, with each party bearing their own costs. Judgment was delivered on 6th June 2016 by D.K. Njagi Marete, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim discloses a cause of action and is supported by evidence

Holding

The claim was dismissed as hollow, vexatious and an abuse of process; the claimant did not deny the Labour office settlement and acceptance of Kshs. 62,292/= in termination benefits

Reasoning

The court scrutinised the pleadings, responses and the claimant's submissions. It found the claim uncertain and hollow, with no substantive claim demonstrated and no evidence in support. The claimant did not deny the settlement reached at the Nandi Labour office or his acceptance of the payment of Kshs. 62,292/=, which the defendant and interested party established through a payment agreement, acknowledgment letter and cheque, and witness statements by the County Labour Officer.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant who does not deny a settlement of termination dues and offers no evidence in support of his claim cannot sustain a claim
  • A claim that does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process will be dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim and application
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the claim
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a trade dispute / employment claim, brought with a Certificate of Urgency by Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Philip Kipkoech Komen v Labour Office Nandi County & another [2016] KEELRC 1096 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Undated Memorandum of Claim filed 1st October 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1096/eng@2016-06-06

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