Daniel Onsoro v Christ The King Academy St. Mary’s Café [2018] KEELRC 1030 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a cook's redundancy claims because he sued the wrong employer and waited too long to claim underpayments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy complied with section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007
The redundancy was valid: the employer met the employees, explained the closure for lack of profit, and issued a one-month written notice taking effect on 15th July 2015; there was no unfairness
Section 40 requires notice to the employee personally in writing and to the labour officer not less than a month before termination where the employee is not a union member. The court found that the respondent's officers met the claimant and other employees, explained that the café was not making a profit and would close, and issued a written notice of one month. Following Barclays Bank and Aviation & Allied Workers Union, this satisfied the statutory conditions and the termination was for valid operational reasons.
Whether the respondent was the proper party
The respondent was the wrong party; the employer was the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru, and no orders can issue against the respondent as sued
The court noted that although no party raised the issue, the Memorandum of Claim, letter of appointment, pay statements and contract of employment all identified the employer as the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru. The respondent, Christ the King Academy St. Mary's Café, was not a proper party before the court, and no lawful orders could issue against it. The court nonetheless proceeded to address the substantive claims.
Whether the underpayment claims were within the limitation period
Under section 90 of the Employment Act, only claims going back to September 2012 could stand; earlier contract-based claims were time-barred
The claimant was under written fixed-term contracts throughout his employment, and any claims arising from each contract for underpayment or unpaid dues should have been addressed within the limitation period upon lapse of each contract. The claim was filed on 25th September 2015, so only claims dating from September 2012 onwards could stand; the earlier claims were time-barred.
Legal principles established
#- No lawful orders can issue against a wrong party
- Where an employer issues the requisite redundancy notice under section 40 read with section 43 of the Employment Act, the termination is justified as based on operational requirements
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claimant's claims against the respondent
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Esther Achwo Wanjohi v Athinai Estate Limited [2020] KEELRC 1901 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1901 (KLR)13 Feb 2020applied
- Cyrus Waithaka Mwangi v Equity Bank Limited [2019] KEELRC 23 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 23 (KLR)11 Dec 2019applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Onsoro v Christ The King Academy St. Mary’s Café [2018] KEELRC 1030 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 273 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1030/eng@2018-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.