Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELRC 1205 (KLR)

Francis Aseyo Buluku v Manjit Sinch Dhadialla [2019] KEELRC 1205 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 July 2019
516 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

#

An employee who resigns voluntarily cannot later claim unfair termination in Kenya, and salary-related claims must be filed within 12 months of leaving the job.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed orally by the respondent on 01.06.1994 as a house help, sued on 14.07.2016 through Wilfred K. Babu & Co. Advocates seeking declarations that his termination was unfair, inhuman and unprocedural, 12 months' salary as compensation of Kshs. 134,988.00, and in the alternative terminal benefits of Kshs. 556,293.88 comprising notice pay, August 2014 salary, service pay for 14 years, house allowance, leave travelling allowance, holiday pay for 18 years, underpayments and compensation. He relied on sections 25 and 45(4)(b) of the Employment Act. The respondent entered appearance on 11.08.2016 through Churchill Midwa & Company Advocates but filed no defence and did not attend the hearing; the claimant testified unchallenged. He told the Court he had written a resignation letter dated 01.08.2014 on account of a domestic problem, was paid up to his last working day, and was a month later told never to return to the respondent's home. The Court found the claimant had voluntarily resigned, so the separation was by agreement and there was no unfair termination. The Court further held that the claims for underpayment, house allowance, NSSF dues, holiday pay, unpaid leave and leave travelling allowances were continuing injuries whose cause of action accrued on 01.08.2014 when employment ended, and that the suit filed on 14.07.2016 was time barred under the 12-month limitation in section 90 of the Employment Act. The suit was dismissed in its entirety with no orders on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the separation was an unfair termination

Holding

It was not; the claimant resigned voluntarily

Reasoning

The claimant testified he addressed a resignation letter dated 01.08.2014 on account of a domestic problem, acknowledged payment up to his last working day, and hoped the respondent would accept the resignation and pay terminal dues. The Court held the allegations of unfair termination unfounded because the separation arose from the claimant's own resignation, making the separation one by agreement rather than a termination by the employer.

p. 1
02

Whether the monetary claims were time barred

Holding

Yes, the suit was filed beyond the 12-month limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The claims for underpayment, house allowance, NSSF dues, holiday pay, untaken and unpaid leave and leave travelling allowances were continuing injuries that ceased when employment ended on 01.08.2014 upon resignation. The cause of action therefore accrued on that date, and the memorandum of claim filed on 14.07.2016 fell outside the 12-month limitation period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A voluntary resignation by an employee cannot amount to unfair termination; the separation is by agreement
  • Claims for continuing injuries such as underpayment and unpaid allowances accrue when the employment ends, and must be filed within 12 months under section 90 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 45(4)(b)
  • Employment Actsection 25
  • Employment Act, 2007section 90
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (memorandum of claim for unfair termination and terminal dues)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Aseyo Buluku v Manjit Sinch Dhadialla [2019] KEELRC 1205 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1205/eng@2019-07-12

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