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 (Memorandum of Claim dated 1st September 2015, filed 2nd September 2015)· [2020] KEELRC 621 (KLR)

Safari Karisa v Corrugated Sheets Limited [2020] KEELRC 621 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 July 2020
LNLINNET NDOLO
744 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 worker lost a 20-year employment claim because he couldn't independently prove he was actually the company's employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Safari Karisa, sued Corrugated Sheets Limited alleging that he was employed as a loader from March 1995 until 15th April 2015, initially on casual terms at a daily rate later adjusted, and that on 15th April 2015 the Respondent's Sales Manager, Mr. Mkeshi, told him there was no more work and to wait for a recall that never came, which he treated as termination. He sought notice pay, twenty years' leave pay, underpayment, service pay, twelve months' compensation, a certificate of service, costs and interest, additionally complaining that he was never registered under a pension or provident fund scheme. The Respondent denied ever employing him, asserting that loaders were engaged through an independent contractor, one Ali Salim Mwakenyezi, that the Claimant was paid per completed job, that no statutory deductions were made for him, and that the Respondent exercised no control or direction over him, there being no contract of service capable of enforcement. At full trial the Claimant testified on his own behalf while the Respondent called Suleiman Khamis Issy. The court framed a single issue: whether an employment relationship existed between the parties. Holding this question central to the claim, the court found the Claimant was obliged to call independent evidence to corroborate his word that he was an employee. He failed to do so, and his entire claim was dismissed for want of evidence, with each party bearing their own costs. Judgment was delivered via Microsoft Teams owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent

Holding

The Claimant failed to prove an employment relationship; the Respondent's evidence that loaders were hired by an independent contractor stood unrebutted by independent evidence.

Reasoning

The court identified the existence of an employment relationship as central to the claim, which was denied by the Respondent, who asserted that the Claimant was engaged by an independent contractor, Ali Salim Mwakinyezi. Given the denial, the burden lay on the Claimant to corroborate his testimony with independent evidence of employment. Having testified only on his own behalf and failed to call such evidence, his claim could not stand and was dismissed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant who asserts an employment relationship bears the burden of supporting his word with independent evidence; failure to do so is fatal to the claim.

Court orders

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

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Retirement Benefits ActNot specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (employment relationship allegedly capable of enforcement by this Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Safari Karisa v Corrugated Sheets Limited [2020] KEELRC 621 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 1st September 2015, filed 2nd September 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/621/eng@2020-07-27

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