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 judgment· [2022] KEELRC 4146 (KLR)

Muriki v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 2 others (Cause 853 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 4146 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 September 2022
JRJames Rika
1,522 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a Methodist Church Minister is not an employee of the Church's central organs, so his Kshs 3.1 million claim failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
A Reverend who rose to the rank of Superintendent Minister sued the Trustees, Conference and/or Synods of the Methodist Church of Kenya, claiming Kshs 3,127,505.15 in stipend arrears, pension dues and compensation for unfair termination of his ministry on March 20, 2014. He alleged the dismissal breached the Church's standing orders and the Employment Act, and that the Respondents failed to remit his pension contributions in full. The Respondents denied he was their employee, contending that ministry is a calling rather than employment, that the Circuit where a Minister serves is responsible for stipends, and that the Minister himself was responsible for pension submissions. They counterclaimed for the return of Church property. The Claimant testified and closed his case; the Respondents opted not to give evidence. The Court framed three issues: employment, unfair termination, and remedies. It held that the Claimant failed to establish an employment relationship with any of the named Respondents: no contract was exhibited, and his own documents - working programs, a cheque and bank statements - pointed to M C K Kangeta Circuit as the entity controlling his work and paying his stipends. The standing orders (SQ 132) place stipend payment and the right to retain or reject Ministers with Circuits. His credibility was questioned for denying recall of the Pastoral Advisory Committee invitation. Pension remittance was the Superintendent Minister's own responsibility, and the arrears claim was undocumented. The counterclaim failed for want of evidence since the Respondents adduced none. The Court declined both the Claim and the counterclaim, with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a church Minister is an employee of the central church organs (Trustees, Conference, Synods)

Holding

No - the Claimant did not establish employment by the Respondents; if anyone, his employer was M C K Kangeta Circuit, which controlled his work, paid his stipends and rejected him.

Reasoning

The Court applied the control test and examined the documents exhibited: working programs, a cheque issued by the Circuit, and Circuit bank statements. The meetings leading to his removal were convened by Circuit committees. The standing orders placed stipend payment and the right to retain or reject Ministers with Circuits, not with the named Respondents, who showed no involvement in his ministry.

p. 3
02

Whether the termination was unfair

Holding

The unfair termination claim failed because no employment relationship with the Respondents was proved; the Claimant also declined to submit to the Pastoral Advisory Committee process after rejection by his Circuit.

Reasoning

Since the Respondents were found not to be the employer, unfair termination against them could not succeed. Further, the Claimant was invited to a Pastoral Advisory Committee meeting but did not attend, claiming not to recall the invitation, which the Court found undermined his credibility.

p. 3
03

Pension and stipend arrears

Holding

Both prayers failed - the Superintendent Minister bore responsibility for pension remittance under the standing orders, and the arrears were unquantified and undocumented.

Reasoning

The Claimant, as Superintendent Minister, was responsible under the standing orders for monthly pension contribution and remittance, so he could not shift that duty to the Respondents. The stipend arrears were neither shown enforceable against the Respondents nor supported by documents establishing the pleaded amounts.

p. 3
04

Counterclaim for return of Church property

Holding

The counterclaim failed for want of evidence.

Reasoning

The Respondents opted not to give evidence and adduced nothing to show the Claimant retained any Church property, so the counterclaim lacked merit.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Ministers of the Methodist Church are not employees of the Trustees, Conference or Synods; the Circuit to which a Minister is stationed is responsible for stipends and may retain or reject the Minister.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is declined.
  2. 2.The counterclaim is declined.
  3. 3.No order on the costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act) - not expressly cited in judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muriki v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 2 others (Cause 853 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 4146 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4146/eng@2022-09-29

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