Elizabeth Muthoni Muriithi v Joseph Muchina Muriuki & another [2019] KEELRC 1847 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a house help was employed by the individuals she worked for, not their company, and that assault at work amounted to constructive dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Who was the Claimant's employer - the individual Respondents or Zocom Limited?
The Respondents, not Zocom Limited, were the Claimant's employers.
Applying the control test and Section 2 of the Employment Act, the court found the Respondents exercised control over the Claimant, who worked at their matrimonial and rural homes for their personal benefit. The leave form exhibited by the Respondents was not a contract of employment and did not prove the employment relationship lay with the company. The company had no business at the matrimonial home.
Was the Claimant constructively dismissed?
Yes - the assault on the Claimant preceded her departure and amounted to classic constructive dismissal.
The court found, on the testimony and the P3 form, that the Claimant was assaulted between 2nd and 3rd May 2016 at the Respondents' rural home, even though investigations called the allegations baseless. Since the assault preceded her disappearance from the workplace, the court concluded the conduct amounted to constructive dismissal entitling her to damages.
Was the Claimant entitled to overtime, holiday pay, leave and severance?
No - those claims failed for want of proof.
The court found it highly unlikely the Claimant worked 18 hours a day in a house occupied by two people away at work on weekdays. She had taken leave from time to time and the specific holidays worked were not identified. Severance was also not payable. Only damages for dismissal and notice pay were awarded.
Legal principles established
#- An assault of an employee by a person connected with the workplace which precedes the employee's departure from employment constitutes constructive dismissal
- The identity of the employer is determined by the control test and the definition of employer under Section 2 of the Employment Act, notwithstanding payment through a company
Court orders
#- 1.Damages for unlawful dismissal at 6 months' salary of Kshs. 70,200/-
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 11,700/-
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 4.Interest on the damages and notice pay at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elizabeth Muthoni Muriithi v Joseph Muchina Muriuki & another [2019] KEELRC 1847 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1847/eng@2019-04-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.