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 excerpt· [2020] KEELRC 1342 (KLR)

Michael Omondi v Chloride Exide Kenya Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1342 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 March 2020
RSRadido Stephen
436 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused to order terminal dues early in the case because whose company actually employed the worker is disputed and must be decided at full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Michael Omondi, was employed by Chloride Exide Kenya Ltd as a Solar Sales Representative by letter dated 2 July 2013 on a contract running to 31 July 2014, stationed at Meru. He was thereafter transferred to Nairobi in July 2015 and, in February 2016, to Kampala, where Battery Masters (U) Ltd simultaneously offered him the position of Solar Sales Representative. Subsequent correspondence blurred the two entities: his January 2017 appointment as acting Country Manager issued under Battery Masters (U) Ltd letterhead while the job description was on the Respondent's letterhead, and his resignation notice of 31 May 2018 was accepted by the Respondent's Human Resources Manager but on Battery Masters (U) Ltd letterhead, setting out his terminal dues. Failing agreement on terminal dues, the Claimant sued on 7 May 2019 alleging unfair termination and breach of contract, with an application seeking an order compelling payment of terminal dues and provision of a P9 form. The Respondent resisted, contending the Claimant was an employee of Battery Masters (U) Ltd with whom it had no contractual relationship. Radido J held that, on the employment records and oral submissions, the question of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent was disputed and therefore triable, requiring determination at trial. The application of 7 May 2019 was dismissed with costs. The judgment was delivered in Nairobi on 13 March 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was the Claimant's employer for purposes of the interlocutory claim for terminal dues and a P9

Holding

The Court declined to determine liability at the interlocutory stage, holding that the employment relationship was a disputed and triable issue, and dismissed the application

Reasoning

The employment records showed mixed letterheads - transfer and offer letters from Chloride Exide Kenya Ltd, yet appointment, resignation acceptance and terminal dues computations on Battery Masters (U) Ltd letterhead, with the job description on the Respondent's letterhead. Given these conflicting indicia of employment, the Court found the question of whether the Claimant was employed by the Respondent or by Battery Masters (U) Ltd required full trial with evidence and oral testimony rather than determination on an application.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the existence of an employment relationship is disputed on the material filed, the question is a triable issue that cannot be resolved on an interlocutory application but must proceed to trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's application filed on 7 May 2019 seeking payment of terminal dues and a P9 form was dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and breach of contract claims (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Michael Omondi v Chloride Exide Kenya Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1342 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1342/eng@2020-03-13

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