Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedEldoret CMEL No. 5 of 2022 (appeal; Memorandum of Appeal dated 6th June 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 1810 (KLR)

Ali v Laser Freight Limites (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1810 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 June 2025
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
2,505 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a driver's unfair termination appeal because he couldn't prove he was actually employed by the respondent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, who had sued the Respondent in Eldoret CMEL No. 5 of 2022 claiming compensation for wrongful and unfair termination of employment, appealed against the dismissal of his claim on 9th May 2023. He alleged he was employed as a truck driver from 1st May 2019 to 24th August 2020 at Kshs.38,000 per month, working seven days a week without rest days, and that his employment was verbally terminated without notice, hearing or terminal dues. The Respondent never entered appearance, filed a response, or participated in the trial or the appeal, which was disposed of by written submissions. The court framed two issues: whether the trial court erred in dismissing the claim on the pleadings and evidence, and whether the Appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought. Applying section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the court held that an employee must first prove the existence of an employment relationship before proving unfair termination, and that where an employer does not respond the claimant's burden is even higher. Examining the bank statements, Mpesa statements, demand letters and visa, the court found nothing connecting any document to the Respondent; salary payments appeared irregularly over only six months, no vehicle link was shown, and service of court documents on an unnamed receptionist was doubtful. Pleadings alone cannot prove employment. The trial court's dismissal was therefore affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 20th June 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellant proved an employment relationship with the Respondent

Holding

No employment relationship was proved; the bank statements, Mpesa statements and other documents could not be connected to the Respondent

Reasoning

The court examined the Diamond Trust Bank statement and Mpesa statements and found no reference to the Respondent anywhere. Salary references did not disclose the payer, and payments covered only six months of the alleged 16-month employment. No evidence connected the Appellant to any vehicle owned by the Respondent. Pleadings alone do not prove employment.

p. 6
02

Whether service of court documents on the Respondent was properly effected

Holding

Service was doubtful - affidavits of service named an unnamed receptionist with no building, floor or door number and no confirmation of authority to accept service

Reasoning

The affidavits of service stated only that service was effected on a receptionist who was not named, without indicating the building, floor or door number, and without showing the person was authorised to receive documents. The court therefore doubted whether the Respondent was ever served with the court documents at all.

p. 6
03

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the claim

Holding

The trial court correctly found that the Appellant did not prove he was an employee of the Respondent

Reasoning

Applying section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee. With no proof of the employment relationship, there was nothing capable of being terminated. The appellate court found no basis to depart from the trial court's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee must first prove the existence of an employment relationship before proving unfair termination; where the employer does not respond, the claimant bears an even higher burden

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed for lack of merit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(c)
  • Employment Actsection 36
  • Employment Actsections 41, 43, 45
  • Employment Actsection 49(1)
  • Employment Actsections 27, 28
  • Employment Actsection 47(5)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 12(5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Musera v Mwechelesi & another
    (2007) KLR 159
  • DPL Festive Limited v Elijah Ochieng' Rakuru
  • Walter Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Alphonse Machanga Mwachanya v Operation 680 Limited
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (Eldoret)
CMEL No. 5 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ali v Laser Freight Limites (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1810 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Eldoret CMEL No. 5 of 2022 (appeal; Memorandum of Appeal dated 6th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1810/eng@2025-06-20

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