Trenk v Cricket Kenya (Cause E376 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2357 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a man's claim for USD 176,000 because he could not prove he was actually an employee of the Cricket Association of Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Respondent violated the Claimant's rights
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent
No employment relationship existed; the parties' relationship was governed solely by the MOU with a fee of Kshs.400,000
The MOU made no reference to employment, salary, reporting lines or work schedule. The Claimant adduced no verifiable evidence of an agreed salary, leave, statutory deductions or place of work, and the board minutes show the MOU was never ratified and the Deputy CEO position did not exist. Section 2 Employment Act definitions show wages/salary as central, and the burden under Section 107 Evidence Act lay on the Claimant.
Whether the Respondent violated the Claimant's rights by discrimination or unfair labour practice
No violation proved; allegations unsubstantiated
The Claimant tendered no evidence of what right was violated, when or how he was discriminated against, and did not allege he was treated differently from others in similar circumstances unlawfully.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
All reliefs declined as the foundational employment relationship was not proved
The declaration, the USD 176,000 and damages for discrimination all depended on proof of employment, which failed; each prayer was accordingly declined.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant alleging employment bears the burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship
- Jurisdiction is a threshold matter determined by the existence of an employment relationship
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit against the Respondent is dismissed with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction); employment relationship challenged as a jurisdictional fact
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondent's failure to pay salary was unfair and unlawful
Claimant failed to prove an employer/employee relationship
Payment of USD 176,000
Unsustainable in the absence of an employment relationship
Damages for violation of rights by discrimination
Not proved; allegations unsubstantiated
Costs
Dismissed with no orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the upshot, the Claimant's suit against the Respondent is unsustainable and it is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Having failed to adduce evidence of the existence of a contract of service with the Respondent other than the MOU, it is the finding of the Court that Claimant has failed to prove that he was an employee of the Respondent at any time between 1st March, 2022 and 11th December, 2022
A Claimant claiming employment rights must prove the existence of an employment relationship
It is trite law that jurisdiction is everything as held by Nyarangi JA in Owner of Motor Vessel "Lilian S" V Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd (1989)
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates between two dates for the MOU (9th May 2022 and 1st March 2022) and between two dates for the Claimant's alleged employment end (May 2023 and 11th December 2022)
Judgment refers to the Claimant as female in the discrimination analysis despite the Claimant being Mr. Walter Mukinginyi Trenk
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Trenk v Cricket Kenya (Cause E376 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nairobi ELRC Cause No. E376 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2357/eng@2024-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.