Evans Omondi Juma v Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd [2021] KEELRC 39 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a security guard's unfair dismissal claim because he failed to provide evidence proving his case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the termination
The Claimant was afforded procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007
The Respondent issued a show-cause notice, invited the Claimant to a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, heard him (he admitted taking alcohol), and the panel recommended a severe warning and refresher training, which was issued. The Court was satisfied the opportunity to be heard contemplated by section 41 was afforded.
Substantive fairness and burden of proof
The Claimant failed to discharge his burden of showing an unfair termination and was not entitled to compensation or damages
Under section 47(5) the claimant bears the initial burden of demonstrating unfair termination. The Claimant alleged he was dismissed after the warning but did not name who dismissed him or told him not to report to work; in pleadings and testimony he only challenged process, not the reasons, and never adverted to the drunkenness allegation. He therefore failed the section 45(7) burden.
Breach of contract claim for leave pay
Relief under this head declined for lack of foundational evidence
The Claimant pleaded entitlement to 5 years' earned leave amounting to Kshs 70,000/- but no foundational evidence of this alleged breach of contract was set out in the witness statement or oral testimony, so the Court declined to award any relief under this head.
Terminal benefits
Relief declined for lack of evidence
The Claimant led no evidence as to the terminal dues or benefits he was eligible for either under contract or statute, so the Court declined relief under this head.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant alleging unfair termination bears the initial burden of demonstrating it under section 47(5) of the Employment Act, 2007; only then does the employer bear the burden under sections 43 and 45 of proving valid and fair reasons.
Court orders
#- 1.The Cause is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance Cause; specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Evans Omondi Juma v Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd [2021] KEELRC 39 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/39/eng@2021-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.