Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedStatement of Claim dated 8th June 2015 (employment cause, ELRC)· [2019] KEELRC 531 (KLR)

Rajiv Prem Sharma v Sunripe (1976) Limited [2019] KEELRC 531 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 October 2019
1,419 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court threw out a manager's unfair termination claim because his own resignation letter showed he had become an independent contractor, not an employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Rajiv Sharma, sued Sunripe (1976) Limited for unlawful and unfair termination of employment. He alleged that after being employed as Regional Manager in August 2014, the Respondent's directors, citing financial constraints, induced him in December 2014 to resign from the payroll on the promise that he would revert to an independent contractor arrangement through his company, Westward Trading Kenya Limited. He signed and returned a draft service contract which the Respondent never executed; instead, he was told he had been retrenched. He claimed 12 months' salary compensation, unpaid December 2014 salary, notice pay, car allowance and general damages, pleading fraud, misrepresentation and deceit. The Respondent denied the negotiations and misrepresentation, asserting the Claimant resigned voluntarily to earn more as a consultant, and counterclaimed Kshs. 240,000 as an outstanding loan balance. The court framed three issues: unlawful termination, entitlement to remedies, and the counterclaim. Relying on the text of the Claimant's resignation letter of 5th December 2014, which referred to a change of employment relationship and resignation from the payroll to work on contract basis, the court held that the engagement had already shifted from employment to a contract for service. Following Maurice Oduor Okech v The Chequered Flag, it found the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from a contract for service, and the claim was dismissed. The counterclaim also failed for want of documentary proof of the loan. Both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant's employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated

Holding

No - the court found that by the time the Claimant wrote his resignation letter, the relationship had already changed from employment to an independent contractor arrangement, so the dispute falls outside the court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court read the Claimant's resignation letter of 5th December 2014, which stated that the terms of his employment and relationship with the Respondent had recently changed and that he was resigning from the payroll to work on contract basis. The court treated this as confirmation that the shift from employment to a contract for service had already occurred, not as a termination of employment. Following Maurice Oduor Okech v The Chequered Flag, claims arising from a contract for service fall outside the ELRC's jurisdiction, so the claim had to fail.

02

Whether the Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs. 240,000 was proved

Holding

No - the counterclaim failed for want of documentary evidence

Reasoning

The Respondent claimed an outstanding balance of Kshs. 240,000 on a loan of Kshs. 270,000 advanced to the Claimant. However, it produced no documentary evidence proving the loan or the outstanding balance. Without such proof, the counterclaim could not succeed and was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims arising from a contract for service as opposed to a contract of service
  • A resignation letter confirming a shift from employment to an independent contractor arrangement means the dispute does not arise from a contract of service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
  2. 2.The Respondent's counterclaim is dismissed
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act

Cases cited (1)

  • Maurice Oduor Okech v The Chequered Flag
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (contested - court held dispute arose from a contract for service outside its jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rajiv Prem Sharma v Sunripe (1976) Limited [2019] KEELRC 531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Statement of Claim dated 8th June 2015 (employment cause, ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/531/eng@2019-10-25

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