Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELRC 171 (KLR)

Jacob Okeche v Wadia Construction Limited [2019] KEELRC 171 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 November 2019
BOByram Ongaya
761 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent on probation in 2008 and later admitted for training in a Higher Diploma in Building and Civil Engineering, sued claiming Kshs.266,215.00, general damages for breach of contract, and costs. He alleged that the respondent relocated its offices without notice, disregarding his transport and accommodation interests, forcing his resignation, and subjected his final pay to deduction of training fees contrary to the agreement. The respondent denied breaching the contract, contending relocation was within its lawful prerogative, and sought dismissal with costs. The suit was determined on the pleadings and documents on record by agreement of counsel. The court, applying Hahn v Singh, held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; the claimant failed to particularise or evidence how the Kshs.266,215.00 was computed. The court further found no contractual restriction on the place of work or assignment and no obligation on the respondent to relocate at the claimant's convenience; the claimant resigned abruptly, citing operational costs and a pursuit of other ventures. Whether the deduction of fees occurred, and whether resignation affected the respondent's capacity to recover fees, remained unanswered by pleadings, evidence and submissions. The claim was dismissed in its entirety, but because of the respondent's failure to comply with court directions, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of special damages

Holding

The special damages claim of Kshs.266,215.00 failed because it was neither pleaded with particulars nor proved strictly

Reasoning

Following Hahn v Singh, special damages must be specifically claimed and strictly proved. The claimant's documents showed the training was approved but did not show how the amount claimed was computed. The particulars of the deduction of fees from final dues were not pleaded and no relevant evidence was provided, so the claim could not be established.

p. 2
02

Breach arising from relocation of the workplace

Holding

No breach was established; the contract contained no restriction on place of work or assignment

Reasoning

The contract provided that the claimant would carry out his duties as assigned, with no restriction on place of work. There was no contractual provision obliging the respondent to relocate only at the claimant's convenience. The claimant resigned abruptly, citing operational costs and a decision to pursue other ventures, and appeared not to have had a grievance about the fees.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Special damages must be specifically claimed and strictly proved; they are not the direct natural or probable consequences of the act complained of and may not be inferred from the act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the respondent for dismissal of the suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Hahn –Versus- Singh
    (1985)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a memorandum of claim for breach of employment contract (constitutional/statutory basis not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jacob Okeche v Wadia Construction Limited [2019] KEELRC 171 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/171/eng@2019-11-29

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