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 judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1733 (KLR)

Oduor & 101 others v Jackwins Company Ltd (Appeal E017 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1733 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
13 July 2023
1,645 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed workers can't win an employment claim on default alone — they must prove an employment contract even when the employer doesn't show up.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu against a judgment of the Principal Magistrate delivered on 21st June 2022, which had dismissed the Appellants' employment claim for failure to prove their case on a balance of probability, with no orders as to costs. The Appellants, who alleged they were engaged in bush clearing for road construction in 2020 and had obtained an interlocutory judgment on 22nd February 2022, argued that the trial court erred in setting aside that judgment, in failing to assess damages and terminal dues after formal proof, and in finding that Kisumu Law Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act. They relied on Sections 10(1) and 10(7) of the Employment Act to place the burden of proving employment records on the employer, and on Peter Njoroge Kamau v Attorney General. Baari J, applying the first appellate court's duty as articulated in Abok James Odera v John Patrick Machira, re-evaluated the record. The court held that under Order 10 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules an interlocutory judgment can only be entered for pecuniary damages or detention of goods, and since the claim included unliquidated damages for unfair termination, the interlocutory judgment was irregular. The ELRC Procedure Rules make no provision for interlocutory judgment because contractual terms in employment must be proved. On the merits, the court held that even in an undefended suit the claimants must prove their case on a balance of probability, and found that the documents produced did not establish valid contracts of service or amounts owed. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety with no orders on costs, the Respondent not having defended the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the interlocutory judgment

Holding

The interlocutory judgment was irregular and cannot found the appeal

Reasoning

The claim sought salary arrears, damages for unfair termination, service pay and terminal dues, all of which require specific proof and are not liquidated demands. Order 10 Rule 6 permits interlocutory judgment only for pecuniary damages or detention of goods, and the ELRC Procedure Rules make no provision for interlocutory judgment in employment claims.

p. 4
02

Whether the claim was proved at formal proof

Holding

The claim was not proved on a balance of probability

Reasoning

Although the suit was undefended and the evidence unrebutted, the claimants still bore the burden of proof. No evidence was led on the duration or nature of the alleged contracts, and the documents produced did not satisfy the court that valid contracts of service existed or that any sums were owed under them.

p. 4
03

Burden of proof of employment records

Holding

Appellants relied on Section 10(1) and 10(7) of the Employment Act placing the burden on the employer, but the court found the claim nonetheless unproved

Reasoning

The Appellants argued it was incumbent on the Respondent to issue letters of employment under Section 10(1) of the Employment Act and that Section 10(7) places the burden of adducing employment records on the employer. The court nonetheless found that the documentary evidence did not establish the employment relationship.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory judgment may only be entered under Order 10 Rule 6 where the claim is for pecuniary damages only or for detention of goods; claims requiring proof of unliquidated damages do not qualify
  • The ELRC Procedure Rules do not provide for entry of interlocutory judgment because parties to an employment arrangement are bound by the terms of their contract, which must be proved
  • Even in an undefended suit, the claimant must prove the claim on a balance of probability

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The interlocutory judgment purportedly entered on 22nd February 2022 was declared irregular and cannot form the basis of the appeal
  2. 2.Appeal dismissed in its entirety
  3. 3.No orders on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 15
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 10 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 10 Rule 4(1) and (2)
  • Employment ActSection 10(1)
  • Employment ActSection 10(7)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesNot specified

Cases cited (2)

  • Peter Njoroge Kamau v The Attorney General
    (2017) eKLR
  • Abok James Odera t/a A.J Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
Kisumu Law Courts (Principal Magistrate's Court)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's judgment (Employment and Labour Relations Court); appeal lodged 29th June 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oduor & 101 others v Jackwins Company Ltd (Appeal E017 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1733/eng@2023-07-13

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