Joseph Nganga Munga v Dandora Millers Limited [2019] KEELRC 2079 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a sacked manager's Kshs.3.7 million claim because he could not prove who employed him or that he was actually terminated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was an employee of Njemoni Limited
No. The claimant had only one employer, the respondent; the appointment letter evidenced joint employment as manager of the respondent and its associated company, not double employment, and the Njemoni payment vouchers lacked authenticity
The court considered the letter of 15th August 1995 appointing the claimant Manager of Dandora Ltd and associated company Njemoni Ltd, holding it indicated joined rather than separate employment. The respondent attacked vouchers 10847-10850 as forgeries, noting sequential serialization and the claimant's own signatures. Two of the four vouchers were not on the claimant's further list of documents. The court found the respondent's account more probable and held there was no employment relationship with Njemoni Limited.
Whether the claimant was unlawfully terminated from employment
No. The claimant failed to establish termination or unlawful termination of his employment on the evidence
The claimant relied on sections 45, 41 and 43 of the Employment Act and the authorities of Walter Ogal Anuro and Alphonce Machanga Mwachanya on substantive justification and procedural fairness. The respondent adduced evidence that the claimant was retired and paid agreed terminal dues of Kshs.500,000.00. The court found the claimant merely pleaded his case without proving it on a balance of probabilities, describing it as an afterthought, and found no termination by the respondent at all.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
No. Having failed on termination, he is disentitled to all relief
The court reasoned that entitlement to notice pay, leave pay, severance and a certificate of service flowed from a finding of (unlawful) termination. Having found no termination of employment, the consequential reliefs fell away and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- A party who merely pleads a case but does not establish it on a preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities fails
- Where documentary evidence lacks authenticity and veracity, the party relying on it fails and the more probable competing account prevails
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party bears their own costs of the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court) over a claim of unlawful termination of employment and terminal benefits
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Nganga Munga v Dandora Millers Limited [2019] KEELRC 2079 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 1861 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2079/eng@2019-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.