Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedAppeal from Milimani CM ELRC CC No. 1043 of 2020· [2024] KEELRC 458 (KLR)

Okeyo v Highway Centre Limited (Appeal O40 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 458 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2024
931 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed an ex-employee's appeal because he signed for his terminal dues and offered no evidence to back overtime and leave claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the judgment and decree of the learned trial magistrate in Milimani CM ELRC CC No. 1043 of 2020, which dismissed the Appellant's claim arising from termination of employment. The memorandum of appeal dated 7th April 2021 advanced four grounds of appeal: failure to appreciate the Appellant's case; wrongly holding the suit was an afterthought filed one year after termination; reliance on extraneous matters; and denial of reliefs despite finding the dismissal unlawful. The Appellant sought substitution with an award of Kshs. 2,955,000 covering damages for unlawful termination, unpaid salary for February to July 2017, severance pay, payment in lieu of untaken leave days and overtime, plus costs. The Appellant relied on Apex Steel Limited v Onesmus Mutuku Komu and Selle v Assorted Motor Boat Company on the re-evaluative duty of a first appellate court, and on Milano Electronics Limited v Dickson Nyasi Muhaso and Section 74(1)(f) of the Employment Act on the employer's duty to keep leave records. The Respondent opposed, contending the Appellant failed to prove employment or the overtime and leave claims, citing Rogoli Ole Manadiegi v General Cargo Services Limited on burden of proof. Marete J found the trial magistrate had properly analysed the case, that the claimant was adequately compensated and signed acknowledgment of terminal dues on redundancy, and that no evidence supported the presumptuous overtime and leave allegations. The court partially upheld only the certificate of service award. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the claimant's suit for damages, unpaid salary, severance pay, leave and overtime

Holding

The appeal was dismissed; the trial magistrate's findings that the claimant was adequately compensated and signed acknowledgment of terminal dues on redundancy, and that the suit was an afterthought, were upheld

Reasoning

The court found that the trial magistrate analysed the parties' cases and concluded the claimant was adequately compensated and acknowledged his terminal dues on redundancy, which was the bone of contention and prayer in the claim. The claimant also failed to adduce evidence supporting the overtime and leave claims, which was his onus. The court found no balances or omissions in the award of the lower court and dismissed the appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant proved allegations of overtime and accumulated leave days

Holding

The claimant failed to table evidence to support claims of overtime and leave; the burden was on him as the party alleging

Reasoning

The respondent argued, and the court accepted, that no evidence was tabled to support allegations that the claimant never went on leave for four years and worked seven days a week from 8.00 am to 9.00 pm including Sundays and holidays. Such presumptuous allegations were not proved, contrary to the principle that he who alleges must prove.

p. 3
03

Whether the suit was an afterthought for being filed one year after termination

Holding

The Appellant's challenge to this finding was rejected; the trial magistrate's holding on delay stood

Reasoning

The Appellant faulted the learned magistrate's findings that the suit was an afterthought for being brought one year down the line of termination, but the appellate court did not disturb that finding and instead found the dismissal of the claim properly grounded in the claimant's acknowledgment of terminal dues.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • It is the duty of the employer to keep employment records including leave records
  • A party who alleges must prove - the burden of proving overtime and leave claims lies on the claimant
  • In a first appeal the court re-evaluates the entire case and comes up with its own findings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 74(1)(f)

Cases cited (5)

  • Apex Steel Limited v Onesmus Mutuku Komu
    [2020] eKLR
  • Selle v Assorted Motor Boat Company
    1968 EA 123-126
  • Milano Electronics Limited v Dickson Nyasi Muhaso
    [2021] eKLR
  • Ndiema Samburi Soti v Evis Kimtai Chepkeses
    [2010] eKLR
  • Rogoli Ole Manadiegi v General Cargo Services Limited
    [2016] eKLR
On appeal from
Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
CM ELRC CC No. 1043 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against a subordinate court decree (statutory first appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Okeyo v Highway Centre Limited (Appeal O40 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Appeal from Milimani CM ELRC CC No. 1043 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/458/eng@2024-02-21

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