Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELRC 1682 (KLR)

Gabriel Nderitu Kiambati v Bayer East Africa Ltd [2017] KEELRC 1682 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 March 2017
RSRadido Stephen
492 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a former employee his full terminal dues because the employer filed its defence late and never challenged his evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 1999 until 28 February 2013, when the Respondent outsourced human resources functions to HR Strategic Partners or the Claimant transferred to that firm. On separation, the Claimant demanded terminal dues. On 26 November 2014 HR Strategic Partners computed the benefits at Kshs 340,906/- after deductions for liabilities and tax. The Claimant disputed the computation, sought clarification, and after HR Strategic Partners declined to handle the matter further, his advocates demanded payment from the Respondent on 19 December 2014, followed by reminders in April 2015 and April 2016. Receiving no response, he filed suit on 14 June 2016 seeking the computed sum. The Respondent was served, acknowledged service, and entered appearance through the Federation of Kenya Employers on 24 October 2016, but filed its Response on 24 January 2017, outside the prescribed time and without leave, and did not appear at the hearing on 20 February 2017. The Claimant gave sworn testimony which was unchallenged and uncontroverted. The court found for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 340,906/- as sought and awarded costs of Kshs 45,000/-. Judgment was delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on 10 March 2017 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to terminal dues where the respondent fails to file a timely response and does not appear at the hearing

Holding

The court found for the Claimant in the full sum of Kshs 340,906/- as claimed, since the Respondent's response was filed out of time without leave and the Claimant's testimony was uncontroverted

Reasoning

The Respondent was duly served with summons and pleadings and entered appearance through the Federation of Kenya Employers, but its Response was filed outside the prescribed time and without leave of court. It was not represented at the hearing and sent no representative. The Claimant's sworn testimony therefore went unchallenged and uncontroverted, and the court accepted the computation of terminal dues made by HR Strategic Partners at the Respondent's behest, awarding the sum as sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Unchallenged and uncontroverted sworn testimony stands unimpeached and supports judgment for the claimant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 340,906/- as sought
  2. 2.Claimant awarded costs of Kshs 45,000/-
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gabriel Nderitu Kiambati v Bayer East Africa Ltd [2017] KEELRC 1682 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1682/eng@2017-03-10

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