Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 15th March 2018)· [2023] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

Olemuteke v Jiwa (Cause 35(A) of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 March 2023
3,750 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee suing for unfair termination in Kenya must prove the employment relationship existed, or the entire claim collapses.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, by a memorandum of claim dated 15th March 2018, sought a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, reinstatement, salary arrears of Kshs.763,000, house allowance, notice pay, delayed salary increments, general damages and costs, asserting he was employed as a caretaker by the respondent at Malikisi township in Bungoma County from 1999 until February 2018. The respondent denied ever employing the claimant, stating the property had belonged to his parents and that Jetha Jiwa Bakeries, the claimant's former employer, was his parents' company. The court framed three issues: whether an employment relationship existed; whether any termination was unfair; and entitlement to reliefs. On the evidence, the master roll relied on by the claimant covered 1998 to 1999 and the claimant himself admitted he was then working for Jetha Jiwa Bakeries, the respondent's father's company. The sale agreements he witnessed did not demonstrate he witnessed for the respondent, and the Western Union remittances came from the respondent's brother. The claimant's testimony was internally inconsistent on when his services ended, and his witness CW2 was found not credible, being contradicted and having pending suits against the respondent. Relying on section 47(5) of the Employment Act and the authority in Zarika Adoyo Obondo v Tai Shunjun, the court held the burden of proving the employment relationship lay on the claimant and was not discharged. The claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent, with a right of appeal within 30 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent

Holding

No employment relationship was proved; the master roll and other evidence pointed to Jetha Jiwa Bakeries, not the respondent

Reasoning

The master roll produced covered January 1998 to October 1999 and bore the claimant's name, but the claimant himself admitted that in 1998 he was working for the respondent's father at Jetha Jiwa Bakeries. The sale agreements he witnessed did not show he witnessed for the respondent. The Western Union payments came from Shanif Jiwa, the respondent's brother. His testimony was inconsistent on the date of termination, and CW2 was found not credible due to contradictions and pending suits against the respondent.

p. 7
02

Whether the employment was unfairly terminated

Holding

The issue did not arise since no employment relationship with the respondent was established

Reasoning

Having found that the claimant's employment ended in 1999 with the closure of Jetha Jiwa Bakeries and that the respondent never employed him, the court held that the claims of unfair termination and the reliefs sought had no foundation. The burden under section 47(5) of the Employment Act lay on the claimant and was not discharged.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship and unfair termination rests on the employee under section 47(5) of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim dated 15th March 2018 is dismissed for lack of merit
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent
  3. 3.Right of appeal within 30 days

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActDefinition of 'employer'; sections 10 and 74 (cited in quoted authorities)

Cases cited (6)

  • Zarika Adoyo Obondo v Tai Shunjun & Another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Casmur Nyankuru Nyaberi v Mwakikar Agencies Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Transport Workers Union v Euro Petroleum Products & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Joseph Munene Murage v Salome Ndung'u
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Mwana Black Smith Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Alice M'Mboga Ogolla v Nyayo Tea Zones Development Authority
    (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (employment relationship dispute)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Olemuteke v Jiwa (Cause 35(A) of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 15th March 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/590/eng@2023-03-09

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