Peter Oenga v Rwaken Investments Limited [2020] KEELRC 1114 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan driver lost his unfair termination and overtime claims because he couldn't prove either that he was dismissed or that he worked overtime.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated
Claim dismissed - claimant failed to prove termination occurred
The claimant alleged he was dismissed when asked to apply afresh for a job in another company. However, he did not attach a dismissal letter, did not name the company he claimed he was asked to apply to, and the respondent maintained he absconded after refusing a transfer. The claimant failed to discharge the legal burden of proving termination.
Whether the claimant proved his overtime claim
Claim disallowed - documentary evidence unreliable
The claimant's claim for overtime was based on a work ticket book of over 100 pages. Although departure and arrival times were mostly entered, the column authorizing the journey was in nearly all cases not signed, and the claimant himself often did not sign as driver. No allegation was made that the respondent refused to sign. The document was therefore unreliable.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee
- Overtime is compensable if proved, independent of a claim for unfair termination
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction) - as a first-instance employment cause
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Oenga v Rwaken Investments Limited [2020] KEELRC 1114 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 364 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1114/eng@2020-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.