Gilbert Muriithi Njagi & 4 others v Muthiru Dairy Farmers Cooperative Society [2019] KEELRC 263 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimants were employees of the Respondent and from what date
The Claimants were proved to be employees of the Respondent, but only from the date of the Respondent's incorporation on 11th September 2012; claims predating incorporation cannot be met by the Respondent
Employment was proved by the claims and the Respondent's concession. However, the Respondent was incorporated on 11th September 2012, so no employment relationship could exist before that date. Claims relating to the earlier period, when the Claimants served Muthiru Dairy Farmers Self Help Group, cannot be answered by the Respondent and were in any event time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimants' claims for compensation and damages were proved
The claims failed for want of quantification and proof; no figures were offered and the sums allegedly paid or owing were not established
The Claimants sought the maximum 12 months' wages, general damages at 15%, lost earnings, leave pay and unpaid working days of leave, but offered no figures at all. The further list of documents did not clarify what sums were alleged to have been paid as opposed to sums that ought to have been paid. Unquantified claims, other than general damages for constitutional abridgement, defamation or contempt, are impermissible and unproven claims fail on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the Claimants were unfairly terminated or abandoned their employment
The Claimants walked out of their employment and therefore cannot claim dismissal; no defence was proffered to the evidence of the walkout
The Respondent asserted that the Claimants abandoned their work stations on 27th February 2017 and never returned, and reported the matter to the District Labour Office Chuka. The letter to the County Labour Office evidenced the walkout, and no defence was proffered against it. Having walked out, the Claimants could not claim dismissal, whether fair or unfair.
Legal principles established
#- A party must plead and prove specific quantified sums in employment claims, as employment is not a contract at large with indefinite terms
- An employer is not liable for any employment relationship predating its incorporation
- An employee who walks out of employment cannot claim dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimants' suits are dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment provided (suit disposed of under Rule 21 of the Court Rules 2016)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gilbert Muriithi Njagi & 4 others v Muthiru Dairy Farmers Cooperative Society [2019] KEELRC 263 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/263/eng@2019-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.