Nyakundi v Banbros Limited (Appeal E002 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of Section 74 of the Employment Act and burden of proof
Section 74 does not shift the burden of proof to the employer merely because it keeps custody of employment records; the party relying on the documents bears the responsibility of production
The Appellant contended that the Respondent bore the burden of proving payment of house allowance and grant of leave under Section 74 of the Employment Act. The Court rejected this, holding that Section 74 places a duty of keeping custody of employment records on the employer, but the production of such documents as evidence is primarily the responsibility of the party seeking to rely on them. The Appellant never demanded production of any document from the Respondent's custody during trial, nor testified to any rejected paternity leave application.
Effect of a discharge voucher on terminal benefit claims
A discharge voucher executed after receipt of terminal dues is a valid and binding contract that bars subsequent claims for additional terminal benefits
The Appellant resigned voluntarily and received Kshs. 28,216 in terminal benefits, executing a discharge voucher on 16th May 2019. He did not contest its production or seek to have it struck out, and offered only generalized assertions of forgery without evidence. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Coastal Bottlers Limited v. Kimathi Mithika, the Court held the voucher binding, mooting the claims for house allowance, annual leave, leave allowance and salary increments.
Burden of proof on paternity leave claims
The employee bears the burden of proving paternity, birth details and a denied application for paternity leave
The Court found it illogical to shift the burden of proving paternity leave to the employer, who was not responsible for the paternity. It was for the Appellant to prove he sired children, provide birth details, and show that he applied for paternity leave which was denied. No such evidence was adduced, and no application form was shown to be in the Respondent's custody.
Ground of appeal on unlawful termination
The third ground of appeal was absurd as there was no claim or finding of unlawful termination before the Trial Court
The pleadings and proceedings before the Trial Court disclosed no allegation or prayer concerning unfair or unlawful termination. The Appellant resigned voluntarily and never pursued a claim for involuntary or unlawful termination, and the Trial Court made no finding on the subject. The ground was therefore misconceived.
Legal principles established
#- A discharge voucher executed on receipt of terminal dues is a valid and binding contract between the parties barring further claims
- Section 74 of the Employment Act places only a duty of custody of employment records on the employer, not the burden of producing those documents as evidence in court
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is declined.
- 2.Costs to the Respondent.
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Mavoko, Machakos County
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Chief Magistrate's Court (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyakundi v Banbros Limited (Appeal E002 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1771/eng@2024-07-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.