Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim filed 8th October 2014 (case number not stated)· [2019] KEELRC 2361 (KLR)

Jared Ondieki Momanyi v Radheshyam Transport Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2361 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 February 2019
LNLINNET NDOLOMOMAUREEN ONYANGO
634 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's unfair termination claim because he could not prove an employment relationship actually existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, appearing in person, sued the Respondent for unlawful termination of employment, claiming one week's pay in lieu of notice, leave days, house allowance, 12 months' salary in compensation, costs and interest. He averred that he was employed as a casual worker at a weekly salary of Kshs. 6,000 from January 2013 until his services were terminated on 14th September 2013 without being afforded an opportunity to dispute the allegations against him. The Respondent denied the existence of any employment relationship, averring that it engaged the Claimant only intermittently to procure casual labourers for a consideration, and stopped after he failed to pay workers whose wages he had been given. The Respondent's Workshop Manager testified that the Claimant and other offloaders were paid per lorry offloaded. The Court framed a single issue: whether an employment relationship existed capable of enforcement. Relying on Agripina Nthambi Ngondu v Sandro Giouse [2018] eKLR, the Court held that not every work relationship creates an employment relationship. It found that while a work relationship existed, there was no evidence of an employment relationship as defined in law; the Claimant's testimony lacked corroboration and his claim that termination followed a demand for salary arrears was not pleaded. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent capable of enforcement by the Court

Holding

No employment relationship as defined in law was established; at most there was a work relationship under which the Claimant procured casual labourers intermittently and was paid per lorry offloaded.

Reasoning

The Respondent, while denying an employment relationship, admitted engaging the Claimant intermittently to procure casual labour, with payment per lorry offloaded. The Claimant's unsupported testimony that he worked six days weekly from January to September 2013 lacked independent corroboration, and his assertion that termination followed a demand for salary arrears was not pleaded in the Memorandum of Claim. Applying the principle that not every work relationship is an employment relationship, the claim failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Not every work relationship creates an employment relationship.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party will bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Agripina Nthambi Ngondu v Sandro Giouse
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jared Ondieki Momanyi v Radheshyam Transport Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2361 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Memorandum of Claim filed 8th October 2014 (case number not stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2361/eng@2019-02-04

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