Mary Gathoni Wanjiku v New Landmarc Medical Laboratories Limited [2019] KEELRC 1587 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the parties were in a contract of service
Yes - the parties were in a contract of service and employment relationship, the claimant being a paid trainee, though not on the alleged letter of appointment
The claimant admitted approaching the respondent's director to gain experience, was not then qualified as a medical laboratory technician, and the alleged letter of appointment was inconsistent with her qualifications (designating her Lab Technician) and internally inconsistent (showing acceptance in February 2014 before its date of 25.12.2014). Yet she earned Kshs. 20,000 monthly, meeting the statutory definition of employee as a person employed for wages.
Whether the claimant's employment was unfairly terminated
No unfair termination; the claimant left on her own accord on 18.05.2016
The claimant claimed she was fired by phone on 12.05.2016, but the respondent's director testified credibly that the claimant left on her own accord on 18.05.2016, after which the parties engaged in negotiation and mediation which failed. The Court found no reason to doubt that evidence, so the compensation and notice pay claims failed.
Whether salary for February, March and April 2016 was payable
March and April salary (Kshs. 20,000 each) awarded; February claim failed
RW admitted owing Kshs. 20,000 for April 2016. For March, she testified to financial problems but produced no evidence of part payment, so the claimant was awarded Kshs. 20,000 as prayed. The payment effected on 11.03.2016 was accepted as being for February 2016, defeating that prayer.
Whether the respondent was entitled to the counterclaim for Kshs. 223,800
Counterclaim succeeded; claimant liable for Kshs. 223,800 less Kshs. 40,000 owed to her, net Kshs. 183,800
The financial review by Chege Muvchunguzi Mwangi and Company LLP covered August 2015 to May 2016 when the claimant was in charge of Keridam Laboratory and kept the manual records. The variance of Kshs. 223,800 was established on a balance of probability. Although no disciplinary process occurred during the claimant's service, no ground was established to defeat her liability.
Legal principles established
#- A trainee receiving monthly payment may be an employee within the parties' agreement and arrangement even where a purported letter of appointment is unreliable
- A claimant who leaves employment on her own accord and engages in negotiation and mediation has not been unfairly terminated
- Liability for misappropriated funds may be established on a balance of probability by a financial review where no disciplinary process occurred during the service
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the claimant for payment of Kshs. 223,800.00 by 01.08.2019, failing which interest to run at Court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 2.Award to claimant of Kshs. 20,000.00 pay for April 2016 and Kshs. 20,000.00 for March 2016, netted off against the counterclaim (net Kshs. 183,800.00 to the respondent)
- 3.Claimant to pay respondent's partial costs of the suit fixed at Kshs. 40,000.00
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Gathoni Wanjiku v New Landmarc Medical Laboratories Limited [2019] KEELRC 1587 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1524 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1587/eng@2019-05-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.