Lucas Akungu Omariba v Tatu City Limited [2019] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear defamation claims tied to employment, but dismissed the claim because the ex-CEO proved nothing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over a defamation claim arising after termination of employment
The Court has jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the ELRC Act because the dispute relates to employment and labour relations
The Respondent argued the cause of action arose after employment ceased, confining Section 12 to employer-employee contract disputes. The Court held that Article 162(2)(a) grants jurisdiction over all disputes relating to employment and labour relations, not merely contractual ones, and that Section 12 is inclusive, not exclusive. Precedents where the Court assumed jurisdiction over employment-related defamation supported this view. The objection was therefore rejected and the matter held properly before the Court.
Whether the public notices published in the Daily Nation and Business Daily were defamatory
The Claimant failed to prove the ingredients of defamation; the claim fails
The Court set out the ingredients of defamation: the statement must be defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, be published by the defendant, and be false. Although the Claimant testified the notices embarrassed him and cost him employment prospects, he called no witness to prove that any third party found the publication defamatory or that he suffered damage. He also did not establish that the words or photograph were false, since truth of the contents was admitted. The burden of proof was not discharged.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including aggravated damages
Not entitled; the prayer for aggravated damages is dismissed
Having found that defamation was not proved, the Court held the Claimant was not entitled to aggravated damages for two reasons: aggravated damages cannot be granted for breach of a private contract between employer and employee, and the defamation claim was not proved. All consequential reliefs, including the apology and retraction, therefore fell away.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) extends to all disputes relating to employment and labour relations, including employment-related defamation arising from the employment relationship
- In a defamation claim the plaintiff must prove the ingredients of defamation, including that some person other than himself found the publication defamatory, ordinarily through supporting evidence
- A claimant who is the only witness in a defamation claim faces difficulty in discharging the burden of proof
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for aggravated damages is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucas Akungu Omariba v Tatu City Limited [2019] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (ELRC claim filed by Mulanya & Maondo & Company Advocates). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1683/eng@2019-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.