Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELRC 1530 (KLR)

Labour Officer Kakamega County v Rodgers Senati Mulemi [2019] KEELRC 1530 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2019
MNM. N. Nduma
1,330 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a petrol attendant Kshs 219,870.60 after his employer's denial of employing him was rejected as untrue.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Labour Officer for Kakamega County sued on behalf of Maurice Imala Silokho, a petrol station attendant, claiming Kshs 219,870.60 from Rodgers Senaji Mulemi for one month's salary in lieu of notice, severance pay for six years, underpayments across specified periods, and accrued annual leave for 2011 to 2014. The claimant testified he was employed in September 2008 without a letter of appointment, paid in cash at Kshs 6,000 monthly (reduced from Kshs 7,000 after the respondent took over the station), kept safe keys and did banking, and worked until February 2015 when he was told the business needed to reduce expenses and was offered three months' salary as terminal benefits, which he declined. The respondent denied ever employing the claimant, knowing him, owning the Kenol Kobil petrol station, or paying NSSF for him, asserting that Kenol Kobil was the true employer under a dry lease arrangement. The court framed two issues: whether the respondent was the employer, and whether the grievant was entitled to the reliefs sought. Finding the respondent's bare denials untruthful and declaring him an unreliable witness - noting his admissions of investing in the station and that the employees left 'happy' - the court believed the claimant's consistent testimony, found the claims proved, and entered judgment for the full Kshs 219,870.60, with interest at court rates from filing until payment in full, plus costs of the suit. Judgment was delivered at Bungoma on 30 May 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent was the employer of the grievant

Holding

The court found that the respondent was the grievant's employer, disbelieving the respondent's bare denials.

Reasoning

The claimant gave consistent sworn testimony that the respondent employed him as a petrol attendant and boss, reduced his salary, and declared him redundant. The respondent denied knowing the claimant at all, yet admitted investing in the Kenol Kobil petrol station and that the employees left the station 'happy'. The court found the respondent not candid and declared him an unreliable witness, preferring the claimant's testimony. It held the claimant proved his claims under paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Claim.

p. 2
02

Whether the grievant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

The court awarded notice pay, service pay, underpayments and accrued leave as claimed.

Reasoning

Having found the respondent was the employer, the court accepted the claimant's evidence that he was not given notice nor paid in lieu of notice, was underpaid contrary to the applicable wage orders, and took no leave after 2011 despite entitlement to 21 days annually. The court found the claims under paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Claim proved and awarded the full Kshs 219,870.60 claimed, with interest and costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A bare denial of an employment relationship, contradicted by the respondent's own admissions of involvement with the workplace and employees, may lead the court to disbelieve the respondent and find the employment relationship proved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kshs 13,614.40 in lieu of notice
  2. 2.Kshs 80,843.70 service pay for six years
  3. 3.Under payments in the sum of Kshs 125,246.10
  4. 4.Kshs 40,166.90 in lieu of leave days not taken
  5. 5.Total award Kshs 219,870.60
  6. 6.Interest at court rates from date of filing suit till payment in full
  7. 7.Costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (suit filed by a Labour Officer on behalf of the grievant); no specific provision quoted

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Labour Officer Kakamega County v Rodgers Senati Mulemi [2019] KEELRC 1530 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1530/eng@2019-05-30

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