Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 21 of 2019· [2019] KEELRC 1011 (KLR)

Howard Omukami v Aga Khan Academy Mombasa [2019] KEELRC 1011 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 July 2019
JRJames Rika
496 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court refused to make a school deposit Kshs. 35 million as security, holding the teacher's claim was grossly overstated.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as a Senior School Mathematics Teacher and Head of Department Mathematics between 1st October 2017 and 15th May 2019, resigned as Head of Department on 15th February 2019. He alleged the Respondent accepted that resignation but purported to extend it to all his positions, including his teaching role, thereby unfairly terminating his contract. He filed a claim on 10th April 2019 seeking lost wages for the balance of his contract period (Kshs. 71,598,535), notice pay of Kshs. 177,913, twelve months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 2,044,956), a certificate of service, costs and interest. Simultaneously, he applied for an order that the Respondent deposit security in Court and/or execute a bank guarantee of Kshs. 35,000,000 pending trial. The Respondent opposed through grounds of objection, describing the application as having no legal basis and unsupported in fact. Hearing took place on 11th June 2019. The Court found the application very weak on facts and law, noting the Claimant had worked under two years at a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 228,000, and that his claim appeared prima facie highly overstated. It held that directing school fees totalling Kshs. 35 million, paid by school children, to be held in a Judiciary account would strangulate the Respondent's operations and disable it from educating pupils. The application was dismissed with no order on costs. The main unfair termination claim remains for hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether security for the claim should be ordered from the Respondent pending trial

Holding

The application was dismissed; the Court found no basis for ordering a learning institution to encumber school fees revenue of Kshs. 35 million pending determination of a claim that appeared prima facie highly overstated.

Reasoning

The Court considered the nature of the claim, the Claimant's earnings and short service period, and the quantum sought. It weighed whether the Respondent was likely to honour a decree, observing that a claim of up to Kshs. 73 million from a teacher who worked under two years appeared overstated. Directing that school fees paid by children be held in a Judiciary account for an unknown period would disable the school from offering education. The application was therefore dismissed with no order on costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not order security that would strangulate a learning institution's operations on account of an apparently overstated employment claim

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application seeking security of Kshs. 35,000,000 is dismissed
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination claim; security application pending hearing of suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Howard Omukami v Aga Khan Academy Mombasa [2019] KEELRC 1011 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 21 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1011/eng@2019-07-18

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