Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)

Geoffrey Lokidor v Aegis Construction Limited [2019] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
27 February 2019
NMNzioki wa Makau
654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employee lost an undefended wrongful dismissal case because his own bank statements and inconsistent testimony failed to prove his claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a security guard, sued the Respondent for wrongful dismissal and various employment-related claims, averring he was employed in January 2015 on a basic salary of Kshs 10,356/- per month and terminated on 28th August 2017 by the Respondent's site agent via telephone call with seven days' notice. He sought compensation for wrongful dismissal, underpayment, unpaid public holidays, unpaid leave for two years, one month's salary as compensation and loss of income. The Respondent did not file a defence and the matter proceeded undefended, though the Respondent's counsel cross-examined the Claimant and filed submissions. The Claimant testified he was hired by one Philip, had no letter of appointment, was paid in bits with his bank statement serving as a payslip, and worked without off days. At hearing he shifted his dismissal date to 23rd December 2016. The court, applying Dan Owuor Ongado v Lake Basin Development Authority, held that even in an undefended suit the Claimant bore the burden of proof and that unadopted pleadings do not become evidence. His bank statements showed credits between Kshs 1,725/- and 2,466/- (the highest being Kshs 10,356/- in August 2016), contradicting his asserted monthly salary, and he gave inconsistent dismissal dates. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Burden and standard of proof in an undefended employment claim

Holding

The claimant bears the burden of proof notwithstanding the absence of a defence; pleadings unadopted as evidence do not become evidence

Reasoning

The court relied on Dan Owuor Ongado v Lake Basin Development Authority, holding that where a party fails to adopt pleadings and documents as evidence, the pleadings do not become evidence. The claimant's own bank statements showed credits of Kshs 2,466/- to 1,725/-, not the Kshs 10,355/- salary averred, and he gave inconsistent dismissal dates.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant must prove his case to the required standard even where the suit proceeds undefended; uncontroverted pleadings do not amount to evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Suit dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Dan Owuor Ongado v Lake Basin Development Authority
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Lokidor v Aegis Construction Limited [2019] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2173/eng@2019-02-27

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