Amos Kioko Musyoka & 7 others v Cmc Motors Group Limited [2022] KEELRC 1088 (KLR)

The court found the discharge letter was an offer accepted by signature without any pleaded incapacity, misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence or coercion, and none signed under protest. The burden under Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act to prove invalidity was not discharged. Applying Coastal Bottlers and Trinity Prime, the agreements were complete contracts binding on the parties, and the Claimants were also estopped by conduct as the Respondent paid on the strength of their representations.

It was uncontroverted that the Claimants held managerial, non-unionisable positions ineligible for trade union membership. Relying on Fredrick Ngari Muchira and Charles Kambo Wamai, the court held that Section 40(1)(d) protects unionisable employees and does not extend to management staff, so no disadvantage arose from paying them at 15 days per year under Section 40(1)(g). The Kenyan Union of Domestic Workers case was distinguished because those grievants were union members.

The court acknowledged the rule in Pinnel's case and Foakes v Beer but noted exceptions, including a deed of release. Since all Claimants voluntarily executed a deed of release with full knowledge of the circumstances and effect of the discharge letter, the exception applied and the payment at 15 days was a full discharge. No plea of undue influence or unconscionability per Lloyds Bank v Bundy was made.