Samuel Thuo Waiganjo t/a Waiganjo & Associates v Samuel Njoroge Kariuki [2018] KEELRC 1040 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya

2 October 2018

HWHellen S. Wasilwa

300 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

What this practically means

Executive summary

The claimant, an advocate trading as Waiganjo & Associates, filed this claim on 2 July 2014 through Malonza & Company Advocates seeking payment of salary in lieu of notice from the respondent. He averred that the respondent was employed as his assistant at a monthly salary of Kshs. 70,000, on an express term that either party could terminate the contract upon issuing a 3-month notice or salary in lieu. The respondent allegedly absconded duty on 31 May 2013 without any notice or explanation. The claimant therefore sought payment of 3 months' salary in lieu of notice plus costs of the suit. The respondent was served through advertisement in the local daily newspapers but filed no response and did not attend the hearing on 16 July 2018, whereupon the claim proceeded undefended. In a judgment delivered on 2 October 2018, Lady Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa found that the employment relationship existed and that the claimant's case remained uncontroverted. The court held that the claimant had established his case on a balance of probabilities and entered judgment against the respondent for Kshs. 210,000, being 3 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus costs and interest from the date of judgment. The entire claim succeeded; no relief was refused.

Key legal issues

Whether the claimant proved his claim for salary in lieu of notice against the respondent

Holding

The court found the employment relationship existed, the claim was uncontroverted, and entered judgment for the claimant for Kshs. 210,000 being 3 months' salary in lieu of notice.

Reasoning

The claimant testified that the respondent was employed as his assistant at a monthly salary of Kshs. 70,000 on terms that either party could terminate on 3 months' notice or salary in lieu. The respondent absconded duty on 31/5/2013 without notice. The respondent, though served by advertisement, neither filed a response nor attended the hearing, so the claim proceeded undefended and uncontroverted. The court found the claim established on a balance of probabilities.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A party who terminates employment without the contractual notice is liable to pay salary in lieu of notice, and an uncontroverted claim proved on a balance of probabilities succeeds.

Court orders

1.Judgment entered against the respondent for Kshs. 210,000
2.Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant
3.Interest on the decretal amount from the date of judgment

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment contracts (employment and labour relations disputes)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Thuo Waiganjo t/a Waiganjo & Associates v Samuel Njoroge Kariuki [2018] KEELRC 1040 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1106 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1040/eng@2018-10-02

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