Mjoki v Veew Distributors Ltd (Petition E220 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court awarded a worker only Kshs.11,521 for underpayment, rejecting his detention and unfair dismissal claims for lack of evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged 48-hour detention and rights violations (Articles 25, 28, 30, 41) were proved
Not proved; the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof
The court found the claim lacked particulars: place and manner of detention unknown, no named captors, no police report, medical evidence or demand letter, and the wife's alleged phone calls were unsubstantiated. Her failure to seek help was 'curious'. The gate pass and leave form proved nothing beyond exit and leave. The Petitioner's word stood against the Respondent's, and the burden under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act was not discharged.
Whether the Petitioner was underpaid
Yes; he was paid Kshs.27,000/= against the statutory minimum of Kshs.32,760.51 for a Salesman in Nairobi
Applying the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2022 effective 1st May 2022, the minimum salary plus 15% house allowance totalled Kshs.32,760.51. The Petitioner earned Kshs.27,000/=, a shortfall of Kshs.5,760.51 per month. For the two months worked, he was entitled to Kshs.11,521.02. The claim succeeded on this head despite not being pleaded in detail in the Supporting Affidavit.
Whether termination of employment was unfair
No; the fixed term contract lapsed by effluxion of time on 30th September, 2022 and no legitimate expectation of renewal was proved
The contract had a defined start and end date and was renewed unambiguously until 30th September, 2022. No law prohibits a one-month fixed term contract. The alleged dismissal on 3rd October, 2022 was after the contract had lapsed. Following Keen Kleeners, an employer need not justify termination on grounds beyond lapse of the fixed period, and no legitimate expectation of renewal was established. No notice was legally required.
Whether the petition raises constitutional issues
Yes, to the extent it is grounded on alleged unlawful confinement and infringement of fundamental rights, though it is substantially an employment dispute
The foundation of the Petitioner's case being unlawful confinement and infringement of constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, the petition was arguable as raising constitutional issues. However, the court observed that the matter was substantially an employer/employee issue which could have been filed as an ordinary cause or claim.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold).
- Once a fixed term contract ends by effluxion of time, the employer has no obligation to justify termination beyond the lapse of the fixed period, save where legitimate expectation of renewal arises.
- He who alleges must prove; the legal burden rests on the claimant throughout and is discharged by evidence.
- The standard of proof in civil claims, including serious allegations, is on a balance of probabilities, with stronger evidence required for more serious allegations.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Respondent underpaid the Petitioner.
- 2.Sum of Kshs.11,521.02 for underpayment.
- 3.Each party to bear own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mjoki v Veew Distributors Ltd (Petition E220 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/597/eng@2024-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.